Batman: Caped Crusader (Prime Video)
- Thread starter Wingcommanderdarkwolf01
- Start date
This is TV-14 and geared more towards adults, so I don't think anybody is thinking of it as a kids show.
Which is my point. These days, it's not uncommon to see LGBTQ characters and relationships depicted in children's shows like She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, The Dragon Prince, or Power Rangers Dino Fury/Cosmic Fury. So if it's common even in kids' shows, there's no reason why it should be remotely surprising in a TV-14 show.
Funny you mention the Kathy Kane Batwoman in the 50s (and early 60s for that matter). I was reminded of her reading some comments about how Catwoman was invented to be Batman's ultimate love interest (paraphrasing).
While certainly editorial decisions change and evolve, the idea that Selina is, and always was, Batman's one true love is belied by the long run of comics where it was heavily implied, if not outright stated, that Kathy was the woman he'd end up with:
And in the 70s it was even money whether it would have been Talia.
I get what you are saying, though at the same time, putting rose-colored glasses on the past (even a very fictionalized take on the past) feels like it's doing a disservice to the memory of people who suffered and endured discrimination or other injustices. Especially when there are ways to incorporate that history, but also opportunities to explore many of the kinds of people left out of the Golden Age Batman stories.
One of the draws of Caped Crusader was the Golden Age setting so I would've liked to have seen them adhere more to the real history, while just expanding the storytelling to include diverse peoples and experiences. It wasn't like they didn't exist, it's just they didn't get a spotlight, and when they did, it was often not positive.
Another poster pondered if focusing on racism would be a distraction, but I think that is a "very special episode" kind of approach. The racism in the Golden Age was deeply interwoven into American society and was often casual, and accepted by many as just the way things are. It was so normalized that many people just accepted non-whites being erased from comics pages, except when depicted in often demeaning and stereotypical ways. I would not want Caped Crusader to emulate those kinds of depictions, but the series would have more weight if they did say depict the struggles that Fox or Montoya might experience due to race and gender. Those are intractable problems, much like how corruption has often been depicted in Gotham, and it's something we could see Bruce/Batman grapple with too. I'm not expecting a pat explanation or solution, and I think the series could stand out more if it did take on those kinds of stories with nuance and understanding.
Last edited:
The first two episodes were kind of meh to me but as it went on i really enjoyed it! I made me happy to hear Bruce call Alfred by name. Obviously they were going for a less friendly Bruce Wayne.
Bring on more!
Bring on more!
Sorry, when I said it would be a distraction, I didn't mean to imply I wanted them to go back to the old racist depictions of characters, that is the absolute last thing I would want. I just meant that it's a serious issue, and when your time is more limited and you have a lot of other things you want to deal with, you might not be able to give it the attention it deserves.
It wasn't my intention to imply that was what you meant. I didn't think you meant you wanted a revival of the old racist depictions. My apologies for that. I agree it is a serious issue, and there is the danger that it could be trivialized if not handled properly. Though the way I envision it is that it would be stitched into the fabric of the series, something pervasive, and it would affect the characters in big and small ways.
Last edited:
I've seen the first three episodes so far, and I've enjoyed them. Not as much as BTAS or Batman Beyond, but pretty good. I'll see what I think by the end of the season.
First impressions after three episodes:
Good - No Joker yet! I've gone in with basically no knowledge of the show so I don't know if he's there later on, but it's nice to see that they haven't leaned on him right from the start.
Good - I'm enjoying the animation style, it's similar to BTAS without being a copy.
Neutral - The voice actor for Batman/Bruce is probably still figuring out the character, but in some scenes the voice was a little flat. Then there were others that it leaned toward a mild Conroy impression. Hopefully the VA is able to find his own take on the character.
Neutral - The Penguin gender swap is an interesting idea, but it didn't seem like they did anything with the character that the original Penguin couldn't have done.
Neutral - Harvey Dent being slightly underhanded to start could undermine his inevitable change to Two-Face. However, the writers may have an idea to make it very interesting still.
Some of the other minor changes I've seen so far are interesting, and I'm curious to see what they do with them. The Clayface design was a lot different than I expected, I thought it was Scarecrow at first glance!
First impressions after three episodes:
Good - No Joker yet! I've gone in with basically no knowledge of the show so I don't know if he's there later on, but it's nice to see that they haven't leaned on him right from the start.
Good - I'm enjoying the animation style, it's similar to BTAS without being a copy.
Neutral - The voice actor for Batman/Bruce is probably still figuring out the character, but in some scenes the voice was a little flat. Then there were others that it leaned toward a mild Conroy impression. Hopefully the VA is able to find his own take on the character.
Neutral - The Penguin gender swap is an interesting idea, but it didn't seem like they did anything with the character that the original Penguin couldn't have done.
Neutral - Harvey Dent being slightly underhanded to start could undermine his inevitable change to Two-Face. However, the writers may have an idea to make it very interesting still.
Some of the other minor changes I've seen so far are interesting, and I'm curious to see what they do with them. The Clayface design was a lot different than I expected, I thought it was Scarecrow at first glance!
Isn't that kind of the point? That things like gender or ethnicity don't have to influence how a character is written, so there's no reason not to make them more diverse? I mean, in the past, even as recently as B:TAS, the default for female villains was to be sexy seductresses using their allure as a weapon, or to be gendered in other ways like being cute and silly (Harley) or childlike (Baby Doll). So making the Penguin female and not adding any stereotypical female-coded traits to the character, just letting her be the Penguin instead of Sexy Penguiness or something, sounds like a good idea.
Isn't the usual idea that Harvey always had an inner darkness that Two-Face manifests outwardly?
My problem is that the darkness is way too "outer" in the episodes I've watched so far. He's practically an overt villain from the first ep.
I definitely agree that gender or ethnicity don't have to change how the character is written. I just generally dislike making major changes to a fairly major legacy character without having a plot reason, especially when they could have created a new character or found one that fit what they wanted to do. I guess I just haven't been interested in comics and superheros long enough to get used to the iterations and characterization changes!
Yes, that's right. I don't ever remember him already being an outwardly crooked person, at least to this level, before he becomes Two-Face though. If his "good" side is already what many people would consider bad or at least questionable, it doesn't provide as big of a swing between the two.
But that's my point. It's not a major change. It's a superficial change. There is nothing about the Penguin's character that requires being male. Sure, you could argue that in a 1940s setting, a woman would be perceived very differently than a man by the surrounding culture, held to different standards. But the Penguin, as originally portrayed in the comics, was a small, funny-looking person in fancy dress who behaved effetely and frivolously and was thus dismissed by observers as unthreatening, thereby masking a dangerous criminal mastermind. That works perfectly for a female character.
I don't know if that's the approach the show took, but it demonstrates the illogic of assuming there's some impassable chasm between what male characters can be and what female characters can be. There's much more overlap than our culture tends to assume.
I agree completely that the character would (and does) work fine either way. I'm not talking about if the character could be female. My point is that Penguin was not a woman originally, and I don't see the point in randomly changing existing characters rather than making a new one.
I think of it the same way as I would think of permanently changing Superman's suit colors to green, purple, and orange! There is nothing about the character that requires him to have a red, blue, and yellow suit, so it would be what you would call a superficial change. However, it's a recognized part of Superman and I see no reason to change it unless it affects something in the story.
Paul Dini "randomly changed" the obscure villain Mr. Freeze into the tragic, compelling Dr. Victor Fries, and everyone loved that. He, Timm, and their collaborators changed Selina Kyle into an animal-rights activist. They changed the Riddler into a computer game designer. They changed the Clock King from William Tockman into Temple Fugate. They changed Dick Grayson into an amalgam of Dick and Tim Drake, and changed Tim Drake into a less obnoxious Jason Todd. By introducing and developing Harley Quinn, they changed the Joker into an abusive boyfriend, adding a new facet to his character that still fit with what was established.
It is the nature of adaptations to reinterpret things. It's a feature, not a bug. There's no point in creating a new version of something if you just copy it. The goal is to find a new way of telling a story, exploring a character, arranging a piece of music, etc. Trying something new, some fresh and distinct variation on an existing theme, is the whole point.
And I repeat what I said before: Ultimately, it's not about the characters who don't exist, but the actors and creators who do exist and have a right to be gainfully employed. Batman's rogues' gallery is overly dominated by male characters. That leaves too few openings for female performers. The reason for diversifying characters is not "random," because it's about opening doors to a more diverse pool of actors.
All of which brought more depth to the characters! It's not a random change at that point, which I said right here I'm fine with.
All I've been pointing out from the very beginning is that to this point the changes to the Penguin character haven't involved any additional development to this point. Which is what I said in my very first comment, right here.
If you look back at my comments, you'll see that I agree with you on many of your points, I just think they could be better applied to an all new character. It doesn't seem there's any point in continuing this conversation though, so I'm going to enjoy the last few episodes of the season instead!
The point is that the character was created in an era where women would not have been considered "the part" and throughout the character's existence gender has never really been a prominent part of who Oswald is. By changing the sex of the character, without changing anything else, the writers are making a statement about how gender doesn't matter in many cases. (I haven't seen this series yet, so I am only extrapolating on what I've read in this thread--but based on that discussion, I think I am right. (Christopher may see fit to correct my correction, however.))
I find your argument contradictory. On the one hand, you're saying the change to the Penguin is too small to be meaningful, yet on the same hand, you're saying that change is so fundamental that it requires the creation of an entirely separate character.
I mean, you want to talk about a change to the Penguin, look at what Tim Burton did. He created a character that bore no resemblance whatsoever to the comics' Penguin, but still called him the Penguin. He did the same with Joker and Catwoman, and arguably with Batman. See also what the Joaquin Phoenix movies did with the Joker, or what Arrow did with Felicity Smoak, Malcolm Merlyn, and numerous other characters. Adaptations often create what are effectively new characters but use the names and iconography of existing characters. Creativity is often about remixing familiar elements, or combining familiar and unfamiliar elements, because familiarity is one of the tools in the kit.
I hate what Burton did with the Penguin. I would've rather seen a more authentic version of the character, which Danny DeVito would've been perfect for without needing to be buried in makeup. But I'm not going to say "He should've given the character a different name," because that's mistaking surface for substance, and it's misunderstanding how creativity works. A character is not a monolithic, all-or-nothing construct, but an amalgam of many different elements. Many adaptations change some of those elements, often most of them. There's no arbitrary cutoff for how many changes are acceptable.
Last edited:
Well, the characters all seemed incredibly tolerant and open towards LBGTQ relationships, I would classify it under anachronisms
