• 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

Alice's backstory wasn't quite as horrifying as I was expecting. The way Skarsten talked about it in the interview I linked to the other day, I was expecting something a lot worse.

That was a bit underwhelming. The teaser tried to hint a sort of Silence of the Lambs / possible pedophile story, but the only thing leaning in that direction was the human skin face, but that was the worst of it. Unless there's another flashback detailing how they escaped the father--like killing him and using his own skin-stripping procedure against him--this was not the horror suggested by the teaser.
 
Yeah, I'm thinking either Rachel Skarsten has a very low threshold for this kind of thing, or was making it sound worse to get people more interested.
I suspect that I know what's happened to Cartwright Sr., but the details have yet to be confirmed.
I was wondering about that, there was a pretty big hole there regarding his fate. The house appeared to be abandoned, so I'm thinking he must be either dead or in jail somewhere.
 
Oh, I'd say George Lucas is in the running. He even put his name on the Star Wars novelization that Alan Dean Foster ghostwrote. At least Roddenberry put in the work and wrote his own movie novelization, however clumsily.
Maybe so.

However, neither Lucas nor Kane have this sort of messianic fervor attributed to them that most mostly of their own creation. There's no such thing as "George's Vision." And even if there were, he fell so far out of favor with the fandom hat it wouldn't even matter.

But you still hear everyone from the remaining TOS cast to the people running Disco/Picard speak about him as if he were some great prophet. And while that's mostly chuckled - even scoffed - at around these parts (especially post #metoo), there are still a significant number of Trekkies who eat it up.
 
Watched episode 4. Didn’t really like that one. Those explosions were terribly done.
 
Well, we had the first bad episode of Batwoman, but I doubt it says anything about the quality of the episodes going forward. Beth was captured by crazy people, they did bad things to her, she went crazy, the end. We really didn't need 40ish minutes for that, but at least its out of the way now.
 
3) I know there'd been some discussion about whether or not Beth and Kate are meant to be identical twins despite their adult selves being played by two completely different actresses who don't really look alike, but I think the flashbacks tonight made it clear that they are identical given the similarities in features between the actresses playing their younger selves (something you can really pick up on in the scene where we see young Beth on one side of the door and young Kate on the other)

I really don't follow your logic here. It seems they'd pretty much have to be fraternal twins, or else they'd either be played by the same actor, or by actual identical twins (if not as adults, then as kids, if they were to do some kind of weird "Alice doesn't look like Kate because of amateur plastic surgery" thing in the wake of this episode). The fact that the kid versions look similar is just good casting; regular siblings, never mind fraternal twins, frequently do look related, that's how it all works. Hell, the Olsen twins are fraternal, and they've literally played the same person.

As for Mouse's comic-book inspiration, one of the commenters at the AVClub suggested he might be a gender-flipped version of Jane Doe, a serial killer/identity thief/mimic who wears her victims skin as a mask, who was given the real name Jane Cartwright in Gotham (it looks like some bright spark at the DC wiki has drawn the same conclusion).
 
Last edited:
People seem to be very Critical About this show online but I didn’t think it was that bad. I enjoyed the two I’ve seen so far. I assume with this being TrekBBS and the majority of people here seem to like everything that people are more accepting of it. :)

People are being critical of the show because they feel the LGBT aspects are 'being shoved down their throats', IMHO.

As if straight aspects aren't shoved down everybody else's throats most of the time in media, LGBT or straight.:rolleyes:

Though some of just taking the usual shit-on-a-show cos it's got a female lead brigade who are double pissed because Batwoman is lesbian played by a lesbian while they're too fucking stupid to know that the character has always been gay.

Exactly.

Honestly, the more I've read about Roddenberry the less I've respected him.

You're not the only one; a lot of people are like that nowadays, myself included.
 
I thought they were identical?

Apparently not. I looked up the definition of Fraternal versus Identical, and it's not really about looks; it's about whether or not the children were conceived from a single egg (identical) or two separate eggs (fraternal).

So Kate and Beth could be Fraternal twins while still being pretty much identical in appearance, although I still think the evidence is there to support the argument that the show did follow the comics and make them Identical twins.

To each their own, though.
 
But it's pretty clear that the creators didn't intend for them to be identical here, in TV and movies if two characters are intended to be identical twins they are either played by the same actor or real twins, neither of which is the case here.
 
in TV and movies if two characters are intended to be identical twins they are either played by the same actor or real twins, neither of which is the case here.

That's not what actually makes twins Identical or Fraternal, though, so it's more up for interpretation than I thought it was, and so unless it's firmly established in-story, I'm choosing to go the comics route irrespective of the characters being played by different actors.

The Olsens are mirror-image twins. I'm pretty sure that means they have to be monozygotic.

It doesn't, though.

They're identical in appearance, but not by genetics, because they were conceived from separate eggs.
 
Actually, as all the people "in the know" could tell you, the Olsen Twins are a conspiracy, its all just one woman pulling a long con on everyone :shifty:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
This show is seriously hot garbage. Why does Kate keep letting Alice go to continue killing and maiming people, instead of throwing her in Arkham?
 
That's not what actually makes twins Identical or Fraternal, though, so it's more up for interpretation than I thought it was, and so unless it's firmly established in-story, I'm choosing to go the comics route irrespective of the characters being played by different actors.
That may be true in real life, but a TV show like this is going to make something like that as obvious as possible, which is why we'd either be getting Ruby Rose or Rachel Skarsten in a dual role, or they'd have cast real life identical twins.
These shows have always changed things from the comics, so just because it was one way in the comics, doesn't mean it will be in the show. Even setting aside the casting issue, I haven't seen anything in the writing to indicate they are meant to be identical.
 
This show is seriously hot garbage. Why does Kate keep letting Alice go to continue killing and maiming people, instead of throwing her in Arkham?

We must be watching a different show because Kate's main aim has been to stop Alice from killing and maiming.

And the bad guy/gal not winding up in Arkham/Ironheights/Fort Roz/Wherever is a staple of the comics. They either don't go or they don't say put for very long.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top