• 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

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.

Thank goodness. I'm sure some prefer it, but actors in real life seldom are the roles they play. And acting is unique in one can play somebody entirely different. If they can sell it, that's all that counts. IMHO, YMMV.
 
Nobody's demanding gay actors *only* play gay characters.

Quite right. It's not about specific individual characters. It's about improving industry-wide inclusion for the actors, giving more opportunities to groups that still don't get opportunities in fair proportion, or that need to fight harder or be given an additional leg up in order to earn opportunities that would be preferentially given to the favored group through conscious or unconscious bias.
 
Jade Tailor of The Magicians has joined the Battle for the Cowl:

https://www.cbr.com/batwoman-magicians-jade-tailor-replace-ruby-rose/

I could definitely see that. She's similar in appearance and height, she's a trained stunt fighter (as she shows in the Twitter video at the above link), she's got a similar edge to Rose, and she's just about as gorgeous as Rose.

Of course, just posting a Twitter video doesn't mean someone's genuinely in contention for the role, but this is the first alternative I've seen mentioned that I find credible.
 
No-one is demanding that LGBTQ roles only be available to LGBTQ actors in general, but in this one specific instance, that is what's being asked, and it's not an unreasonable requirement to have.
 
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.

...and considering the risk (and insurance issues) involving actors performing their own stunts, why didn't the producers simply refuse to have her do a stunt? One wrong move...a late reaction...a practical effect gone wrong has injured and killed actors in the past, so there's no reason to have the performer place themselves in dangerous situations.
 
Anyway, whoever gets it I hope they make very clear to them the reality of eight-nine months of sixteen hour days that lie ahead for them for the next six years.

A lot of the actors I've seen gunning for it (if not all, I didn't do a survey) have experience with Vancouver, long, American-style TV seasons, and action-adventure roles.
 
So what will they do with the "Previously on Batwoman" recap at the start of Season 2? Will they green screen the new actress in or leave them as they were.
 
So what will they do with the "Previously on Batwoman" recap at the start of Season 2? Will they green screen the new actress in or leave them as they were.

She can just narrate a recap in a letter to Bruce, or even tell "him" in person. :p
 
Anyway, whoever gets it I hope they make very clear to them the reality of eight-nine months of sixteen hour days that lie ahead for them for the next six years.

Jade Tailor has just come off of 5 seasons as one of the regulars of a series largely filmed in Vancouver, albeit with 13-episode seasons. I'm sure she knows the drill.


So what will they do with the "Previously on Batwoman" recap at the start of Season 2? Will they green screen the new actress in or leave them as they were.

If today's audiences could understand Discovery: "If Memory Serves" showing Jeffrey Hunter as Pike in its recap of "The Cage," or Doctor Who: "Twice Upon a Time" showing William Hartnell as the First Doctor before morphing him into David Bradley, then they can understand Batwoman changing appearance between the recap and the episode.

Heck, decades ago, The Six Million Dollar Man did it in "The Return of the Bionic Woman," showing Martin E. Brooks's Rudy Wells narrating flashbacks to scenes where he was played by Alan Oppenheimer. And that was actually within the episode, not an opening recap.
 
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.

If your going to have quotas it should be that you need to have a certain amount of LGBTQ people employed in order to prevent discrimination where someone can be fired for just being gay. Telling them what roles they have to play though makes no sense. The goal should be actors feeling it's okay to come out of the closet and not worry about being fired because of it or loosing work because of it. Who plays who should be up to the Director and the creative people. You then create something like what the NFL has with it's Rooney Rule were your required to have a certain number of LGBTQ actors audition for any role meaning they are given a fair shot to showcase their talent to casting directors and producers and all of those types of folks. Even if they don't land that role maybe they impressed enough that it gives them a advantage for another role maybe in same movie or show or maybe another movie or show elsewhere.

Jason
 
Last edited:
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.
Nobody's demanding gay actors *only* play gay characters.
Quite right. It's not about specific individual characters. It's about improving industry-wide inclusion for the actors, giving more opportunities to groups that still don't get opportunities in fair proportion, or that need to fight harder or be given an additional leg up in order to earn opportunities that would be preferentially given to the favored group through conscious or unconscious bias.

I said this in another thread, and I'll repeat it here. While on the one hand I'm all for the producers etc. wanting to have due representation with the Kate Kane character, this is a dangerously slippery slope. Every attempt to provide this inclusion more broadly can result in the very discrimination they're attempting to overcome. All producers that want to make certain representation occurs properly must be very careful going forward that their efforts, like this one, that 'only gay can play gay', don't result in a larger 'gay can only play gay' backlash.

I hate to say it, but for each role like Kate Kane, where they want the representation to be as clear as it is, there will need to be a role where the actor and the character don't have to match, and the representation is at best serendipitous. This is exactly the type of situation where small steps are needed, so the giant leaps don't go in the wrong direction.
 
So what will they do with the "Previously on Batwoman" recap at the start of Season 2? Will they green screen the new actress in or leave them as they were.

Or shoot certain scenes over again with the new actor. In a similar "previously" situation on ER, one actor walked up to a doctor and punched him in the face in the original episode, but the scene was re-shot for the teaser when that actor was replaced.
 
So what will they do with the "Previously on Batwoman" recap at the start of Season 2? Will they green screen the new actress in or leave them as they were.

Depends which costs them more - any royalties/fees/payments to Ruby Rose or editing old footage
 
I said this in another thread, and I'll repeat it here. While on the one hand I'm all for the producers etc. wanting to have due representation with the Kate Kane character, this is a dangerously slippery slope. Every attempt to provide this inclusion more broadly can result in the very discrimination they're attempting to overcome. All producers that want to make certain representation occurs properly must be very careful going forward that their efforts, like this one, that 'only gay can play gay', don't result in a larger 'gay can only play gay' backlash.

I hate to say it, but for each role like Kate Kane, where they want the representation to be as clear as it is, there will need to be a role where the actor and the character don't have to match, and the representation is at best serendipitous. This is exactly the type of situation where small steps are needed, so the giant leaps don't go in the wrong direction.

Valid observation.
 
Complaining that hiring one actress is a "slippery slope" is ironically a slippery slope argument and about as shit an observation as there could be.

The funny thing is, ask the people who make that sort of argument what they'd think about a female Bond or a black Sherlock Holmes and see what answer you get...
 
Or shoot certain scenes over again with the new actor. In a similar "previously" situation on ER, one actor walked up to a doctor and punched him in the face in the original episode, but the scene was re-shot for the teaser when that actor was replaced.

They reshot certain famous scenes from season 1's Spartacus with Liam McIntyre when the need arose.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top