Ooops your right, It was one of their other regular writers, Jesse Shedeen.
Spoilers Batwoman - Season 1
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
The article's writer is clearly "burned out" by the Arrowverse's narrative formula, which makes me wonder why they bothered writing a review for the pilot instead of someone else on the site's staff who isn't feeling that way.
Eh. Reviews are what they are, but I'm still hoping this series is its own force among the DC/CW shows (like the excellent Black Lightning), so all one can do is give it a chance.
According to the Batwoman showrunner, they are currently not allowed to use Renee Montoya due to her being used in the Harley Quinn / Birds of Prey movie.
https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/batwoman-permitted-dc-character/amp/
https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/batwoman-permitted-dc-character/amp/
We Got This Covered isn't a reliable source of information, but even if Batwoman really did want to use Renee and were told that they couldn't, it's not an embargo; it's a "temporary situational restriction" and could eventually change.
Regardless of what you think of what we got this covered, I seriously doubt they would fabricate a quote from the show's showrunner. But then, you always believe what you choose to believe anyway. In other words, I would consider them a more reliable source of information than I ever would you.
^ I acknowledged the possibility of Batwoman having wanted to use Renee and being told that they couldn't, but what I disagree with is using the word "embargo" to describe that potential denial.
And I personally wouldn't bank on We Got This Covered not having fabricated a quote from Caroline Dries because they're not above posting proveable nonsense just to drive clicks to their site.
And I personally wouldn't bank on We Got This Covered not having fabricated a quote from Caroline Dries because they're not above posting proveable nonsense just to drive clicks to their site.
We'll see how they do, I haven't been crazy about most of the Looking Glass-type characters in the past.
Am I seriously the only one getting a distinct dissonance of intent with the whole "freedom to be myself/immediately adopts someone else's identity" shtick?
I mean I genuinely do hate to harp on about this, but they seem intent on doubling down to the point it's kinda hard to ignore.
To be clear since I know the kind of company not being 100% down for this show puts me in (much to my distaste): I'm not opposed to the character on principle, but this particular approach just feels to me very ill suited and awkward. It's like what they actually wanted to do was tell a Huntress story, but also really wanted "bat" in the title. It'd even kinda make sense for a Nightwing or Oracle story since they are legacy characters that did indeed forge their own unique identities.
I mean I genuinely do hate to harp on about this, but they seem intent on doubling down to the point it's kinda hard to ignore.
To be clear since I know the kind of company not being 100% down for this show puts me in (much to my distaste): I'm not opposed to the character on principle, but this particular approach just feels to me very ill suited and awkward. It's like what they actually wanted to do was tell a Huntress story, but also really wanted "bat" in the title. It'd even kinda make sense for a Nightwing or Oracle story since they are legacy characters that did indeed forge their own unique identities.
She's not adopting an identity, she's adopting a symbol.
Kara did basically the same thing, she "found herself" in adopting the S("it's not an S"), so I don't get why this is such a problem all of a sudden.
History of feminism is basically society saying "this is only for men" and women saying "no, we can do this too" so I see no dissonance between "being yourself" and taking something that was only for men and making it your own.