It's kinda weird there's no casting call for Kate though, since presumably they'd have to involve her at least for a little bit to tie up stuff from Season 1 and to make the transition slightly less abrupt. Since nobody actually announced this and as far as I can tell this whole speculation is based on this casting call I'm still hoping they've already found a replacement for her, and this new role is just her future sidekick.
Which lends some credence to my hope that they're leaving room for Ruby Rose to return on a recurring, infrequent basis rather than irrevocably dropping her.
We've seen this with Batwoman when Kate retreated into herself after killing mouse's father - they weren't too succesful (one wound up in Mary's clinic).
I figure if there was any hope for Ruby returning she would have done so to at least finish the remaining originally planned Season 1 episodes, and it doesn't seem like that's happening.
We don't know for sure, all we have to go on in a casting call sheet, and they often use fake names to cover up the identity of characters from the comics, so even though the name doesn't come from the comics, that doesn't mean the character isn't from the comics. There's already at least one theory floating around about who she might be. I think it was more than one, I think Mary made a reference to her having treated other imitators before the girl that was with her in the episode. Bringing in a new character rather than recasting Kate does seem like it's going to be way harder than it would have been to just recast. So much of the show is based around Kate's family and personal relationships that it's not like they can just slot in a new characters. The way Arrow, Flash, and Legends are set up it would have made it a lot easier, but Batwoman really is specifically built around Kate specifically a lot more than they are.
Is this going to be the first superhero comic book TV series where the lead character is not the same character as in the comic?
There are ways around this. One being the season two opener tells the audience what happened to her with the new Batwoman being introduced during the story or the story right after it. And simply swapping out actors isn't going to have any knock-on effects either? You're going to end up with more or less a different character anyway. So why not just roll with it and let it be a new one. Why can't the show go in its own direction? Why does it have to be comic book strict? People are going to feel cheated anyway due to Rose's departure. Having her replacement keep the Kate Kane name isn't going to prevent that.
Who said anything about being comic book strict? The show already has a direction, and it's very Kate Kane oriented. Why should it suddenly have to change course because of a real life casting situation?
I agree. A new character is much easier for the actor rather than have them be Kate Kane 2.0/Ruby Rose. Plus I kind of think it's disrespectful to Ruby Rose if they hire another person to basically imitate you when you left/or were fired from the show. "You're gone but we hired someone that looks and acts like you"
All of this is wrong. The entire premise of the series was built around Kate Kane being Batwoman, and, beyond that, the season was also forced to wrap up prematurely in the middle of an ongoing story that was centered on Kate herself and her relationships as Batwoman and in her civilian life. It would be like starting a two-part story involving Barry Allen being The Flash as a midseason finale and then coming back with Grant Gustin suddenly completely gone and some brand-new actor and character being The Flash and trying to continue on with existing storylines. Because of the structural premise and conceit of the series, Batwoman cannot be anyone other than Kate Kane. Period.
Exactly as @dodge said. The show is about Kate Kane. It's not about Batwoman. The cape and cowl are nothing more than set pieces. All of the Arrowverse shows are like this. It has nothing to do with being 'comic book strict.' It's no different than had Amell left after season one. The entire narrative foundation was based around Oliver, the book of names, his time on the island, etc. If they had brought in a new character - even if they had just made Ramsey the lead - they would have had to formulate some overly contrived plot device to abruptly change the course of the show. Or they could have just recast the character. Bullshit.
I've heard two -- Holly Robinson (ally of Catwoman) and Harper Row (Bluebird). Well, Agents of SHIELD, sort of, since the lead of the SHIELD comics it's credited as being based on was Nick Fury. Batman Beyond comes close, since Terry McGinnis was a "Batman" with no precedent in the comics; though Bruce Wayne was still a lead character, so it's borderline. And you could quibble whether The Incredible Hulk's "Dr. David Banner, physician, scientist" is the same character as Dr. Robert Bruce Banner, nuclear physicist. Outside of superhero comics, there's iZombie, whose lead on TV was Liv Moore instead of Gwen Dylan. The Timecop series replaced the comics' Max Walker with Jack Logan. Not where the writing is concerned. The same storylines can continue as before, just performed differently. A different interpretation of the character's personality, but with the same backstory, relationships, and unresolved conflicts. Hardly a complete break like a new character would be. I wouldn't feel cheated if she were recast with an equally engaging actress. For instance, if they'd taken up Jade Tailor on her offer to take over playing Kate, I would've been delighted.
No, it isn't. Roles get recast all the time. Mark Ruffalo replaced Edward Norton as Bruce Banner. Don Cheadle replaced Terrence Howard as Jim Rhodes. Batman has been recast several times in his movie series. The Arrowverse recast Sara Lance and Alura Zor-El and is in the process of recasting Sam Lane and Morgan Edge. Actors don't own their characters, any more than pilots own the airline. They're employees hired to do a job. If an employee leaves, the job still needs to be done.
Oh, right. I always forget that Coulson was created for the movies. Not really sure I'd count that one since Batman Beyond was an original concept, rather than being based on a specific comic. This one is kind of borderline, since it seems he was intended to be the character from the comics, just with a different name. Oh right, I forgot about they changed lead characters in iZombie. Never heard of it. She's great on The Magicians, Kady is one of my favorite characters.
But it was based on Batman and it called its lead character Batman. It's not a perfect example, but it's the closest one I can think of. Which surprises me, because the idea of a superhero adaptation with a different lead character in the role seems familiar to me. I could swear there's been some kind of an "in name only" adaptation that grafted the trappings of the superhero onto a completely original character and premise. Maybe I'm thinking of the 1944 Captain America Republic serial, in which Captain America was District Attorney Grant Gardner. (It was actually written with a different lead character and had Cap grafted on, so it has nothing in common with Cap except the name and costume.) Loosely, yeah, but the fact that he was always called David with various fake surnames, with "Banner" only being used rarely outside the title narration and "Bruce" only ever being seen as the middle name on his tombstone, makes it feel more disconnected, especially with his radically different scientific focus and the lack of any of Bruce's supporting cast. He's about as far removed as you can get while being technically the "same" character.
Soap operas have done that for decades and kept chugging along. It's not as big of a challenge as you're a fearing.