Spoilers Batwoman - Season 1

[Guy Gardener]

Coy and Vance Duke.

I thought it was weird, but I was relieved when Bo and Luke came back.

Barry VanDyke did it twice.

A professional.

Air Wolf and Galactica 1980.

Earth Final Conflict hurdled through Three different Series Leads in 5 years.

2 boys and a girl.

https://www.insider.com/tv-shows-that-continued-after-star-left-2018-6

 

[dahj]

Whatever the case, it's their decision to make, whether we spectators understand it or not.

Lol, spare me the "showrunners work in mysterious ways" speech, they're not gods, they're people and people make stupid decisions all the time.

This is one of them.

 

[Christopher]

Lol, spare me the "showrunners work in mysterious ways" speech, they're not gods, they're people and people make stupid decisions all the time.

This is one of them.

We don't know that yet, because we only know a fraction of what there is to know. No, they're not gods, but you're not omniscient either. The first step toward wisdom is admitting what we don't know.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Well, we do know thanks to that TVLine article that Dries and Berlanti apparently thought the audience would be more accepting of an entirely new character than of a simple recasting, and looking around online, it appears that that they miscalculated.

 

[Christopher]

Well, we do know thanks to that TVLine article that Dries and Berlanti apparently thought the audience would be more accepting of an entirely new character than of a simple recasting, and looking around online, it appears that that they miscalculated.

You're confusing two different things: the audience reaction before the fact and the way they react when they actually see the result. The former is utterly irrelevant, because fandom always reacts negatively ahead of time even to things that turn out to be brilliant and wonderful in the end. So I'm sure what the producers are actually thinking about is the reaction after the fact, because that's the only part that matters. We shall see when we shall see. Not before.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I do understand the point you are making. But it’s assuming a lot to think that most of the audience will even come back to give the changes a try.

This show was launched as part of the Arrowverse during a big Crossover. This new character and new actress will not have that advantage at all. All these shows have ratings increases during the crossovers. But many of the added viewers do not stick arounnd after that. It’s highly unlikely that we will see this new Batwoman interact with the rest of Arrowverse In the beginning . Plus the unique extended break due to pandemic shutdown of production.

This will be essentially a new show launched 8 months later. With the only thing supporting it is being on same network as rest of Arrowverse shows and the existing Batwoman brand name. With no crossover many do not watch all these shows. The creators of this show certainly have the right to redefine that brand. But that is going to test brand devotion. Especially to a brand that is very new to tv.

Imagine if a restaurant closed during the shutdown reopened with a whole new menu and new chef. Should customers come back just for the same location and same name alone? Some might use the long reconfiguration period to find alternatives and never go back. Or lose interest completely.

 

[DigificWriter]

People are reacting badly to this decision because it makes no sense given how intrinsic Kate was to Season 1 and the inescapable fact that every single plotline that viewers were asked to invest their time in over the course of 7 months is now meaningless and will go entirely unresolved.

Audiences don't need to "wait and see" to know that completely throwing the entire supporting cast of a series and an entire season's worth of stories - all of which weren't even completed - in the garbage is not a smart play.

 

[Christopher]

I do understand the point you are making. But it’s assuming a lot to think that most of the audience will even come back to give the changes a try.

Like I said, the audience always objects at first, to eventual successes as well as eventual failures, so it's naive to think advance opinions are the last word on the subject. I've seen this happen enough times to know that any opinion offered before the fact is worthless. I'm not "assuming" anything -- I'm arguing against making assumptions. My point is simply that we don't know yet and it's foolish to think we do.

And I will give the changes a try, because I'm an optimist and I believe in giving things a fair shake before I write them off. I'd rather have a recasting myself (with the right actress), I recognize that this is a risky change, but I'm willing to give them a fair chance to prove me wrong. The very fact that they're willing to try something so risky rather than play it safe is worthy of respect.

Imagine if a restaurant closed during the shutdown reopened with a whole new menu and new chef. Should customers come back just for the same location and same name alone? Some might use the long reconfiguration period to find alternatives and never go back. Or lose interest completely.

Right, because people totally gave up on Legends of Tomorrow when it stopped being about Rip Hunter and Hawkgirl. And Babylon 5 when it replaced Sinclair with Sheridan.

Any major change can cost viewers, sure. Lots of people walk away from Doctor Who every time it recasts the Doctor. But it's survived for decades despite that, because a change can bring new viewers in as well. These things are never exclusively about holding onto the existing audience, because any existing audience will undergo attrition over time anyway. TV and film series survive by catching the attention of new viewers as well as holding the old. And a fresh start or a bold transformation can bring new attention to a show -- look at all the press this change is getting -- and thereby attract people who weren't already watching.

Bottom line, there are both negatives and positives to weigh in a decision like this. The negatives you express are not without merit, but they're not the entire picture. I'm just trying to consider both sides of the question. Sometimes things turn out better than we fear. Sometimes they turn out worse than we hope. We never know which column something will fall into until it happens.

 

[DigificWriter]

Because people totally gave up on Legends of Tomorrow when it stopped being about Rip Hunter and Hawkgirl. And Babylon 5 when it replaced Sinclair with Sheridan.

You keep trying to make comparisons to scenarios that are not comparable.

I cannot think of a single example of a television series or film that replaced its central character without resolving the story in which said character was involved, which is what is happening here.

Poor word-of-mouth is going to turn off new viewers, and existing viewers are not going to return to the show knowing that everything they spent Season 1 investing their time in is meaningless.

The decision to go with a brand-new character is in and of itself not a problem; the problem is that the decision was made in the middle of the story.

That's what people are reacting negatively towards, and "waiting to see what they do" will never change that one stone-cold fact.

 

[Marc]

Barry VanDyke did it twice.

A professional.

Air Wolf and Galactica 1980.

neither role was recast though - both were where "new" characters in the form of St. John Hawke (a no - the ep where Hawke was in a "coma" for years doesn't count) and a grownup Boxey.

 

[The Realist]

because fandom always reacts negatively ahead of time even to things that turn out to be brilliant and wonderful in the end.

This much is certainly true. Fandom lives to predictively destroy.

 

[Christopher]

neither role was recast though - both were where "new" characters in the form of St. John Hawke (a no - the ep where Hawke was in a "coma" for years doesn't count) and a grownup Boxey.

But this role isn't being recast either. That's the point.

 

[dahj]

We don't know that yet, because we only know a fraction of what there is to know. No, they're not gods, but you're not omniscient either. The first step toward wisdom is admitting what we don't know.

Nonsense.

A stupid decision can have positive effects in the end, but that doesn't make the decision itself any less stupid.

I never claimed any future vision. I do hope the show continues to be good, goes on for many seasons more and brings a whole new lesbian superhero to the fore that this generation can look up to and future generations can argue about who's the better Batwoman.

This decision in the now however makes that future very unlikely. We can wax poetic about creativity and quality overcoming obstacles all day long, but that's just not true in the real world. This show already had a rocky start with all the hate from the MRAs directed at it, it really doesn't need to piss off most of its existing fanbase and create another uphill battle for itself.

And this isn't "just another character" and people being simply resistant to change. Kate Kane isn't a any random superhero, she's one of the highest profile LGBTQ superheroes, she means a lot to a lot of people and when she's consistently fucked over by editorial decisions in the comics and now in TV it's just not a great look and it's both entirely understandable people are pissed and also not particualry fair to lump those feelings along with every character change ever.

 

[Christopher]

Nonsense.

A stupid decision can have positive effects in the end, but that doesn't make the decision itself any less stupid.

We don't know most of the facts here, so we're not qualified to judge. A few sentences in an interview are not enough to judge by. What they have told us is not anywhere close to the complete picture. It is only the part they're willing to tell us. Most of their ideas that led to this decision would probably be spoilers, so they don't want us to know them yet. For all we know, they have some amazing ideas about story possibilities opened up by introducing a new character, possibilities that are exciting enough that they outweigh the downsides of taking the risk. But of course they're not going to tell us about those storylines in advance.

This decision in the now however makes that future very unlikely.

Maybe. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying. Hell, the Arrowverse has successfully pulled off many things that anyone would've insisted they were out of their minds to attempt. When Arrow started, the conventional wisdom was that a superhero show had to be grounded and Nolanesque and avoid all the silly comic-booky stuff like masks and code names and superpowers and costumed villains. Now we've seen King Shark fight Gorilla Grodd, we're clamoring for spinoffs about Green Lantern and the Elongated Man, we've accepted Beebo as our savior, and we've seen Burt Ward yell "Holy crimson skies of death!" as the Crisis on Infinite Earths engulfed the entire live-action DC multiverse. The entire Arrowverse is completely insane on paper. Nobody would ever in a million years have thought any of this could work. So maybe it's time fandom stopped looking for excuses to assume everything will be crap and just tried having some hope and faith.

 

[kirk55555]

Wouldn't be the first time a Batwoman run was cut short...

Of all the things I hate Dan Didio for, being an asshole to the Batwoman writers and banning her marriage is one of the biggest things, since I really, really enjoyed that run and was a huge fan of their version of Batwoman (the same one that started in the 52 weekly series)

Right, because people totally gave up on Legends of Tomorrow when it stopped being about Rip Hunter and Hawkgirl.

Actually, I pretty much did do this. I liked Rip and Captain Cold, and after Cold died and Season 2 dropped Hunter (while also screwing over the JSA), I dropped the show almost completely. I ended up watching Season 3 (on Netflix after the season ended) and enjoying it to a certain extent, but then they got rid of Victor Stein and killed off the real Zari (who, along with Mick Rory, was one of the big bright spots of S3) and now I am 100% done with Legends of Tomorrow.

 

[Samurai8472]

Wow so they were thinking along the lines of some fans

“To be honest with you, I did consider the ‘soap opera version’ [of recasting] for a hot minute, because selfishly we already had a couple episodes written, and transition-wise it would be seamless,” she told Plec.

Soap operas have done that for decades and kept chugging along. It's not as big of a challenge as you're a fearing.

In addition to paying “respect to everything that Ruby [Rose] put into the Kate Kane character” during Season 1, Dries said, “it also helps the audience, because we’re not asking them to address ‘the elephant in the room'” by accepting a new face as the same person.

Then me

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"

 

[Reverend]

Nonsense.

A stupid decision can have positive effects in the end, but that doesn't make the decision itself any less stupid.

I never claimed any future vision. I do hope the show continues to be good, goes on for many seasons more and brings a whole new lesbian superhero to the fore that this generation can look up to and future generations can argue about who's the better Batwoman.

This decision in the now however makes that future very unlikely. We can wax poetic about creativity and quality overcoming obstacles all day long, but that's just not true in the real world. This show already had a rocky start with all the hate from the MRAs directed at it, it really doesn't need to piss off most of its existing fanbase and create another uphill battle for itself.

And this isn't "just another character" and people being simply resistant to change. Kate Kane isn't a any random superhero, she's one of the highest profile LGBTQ superheroes, she means a lot to a lot of people and when she's consistently fucked over by editorial decisions in the comics and now in TV it's just not a great look and it's both entirely understandable people are pissed and also not particualry fair to lump those feelings along with every character change ever.

Honestly I think Ruby jumping ship just put she show-runners between a rock and a hard place. On balance, I think they picked the least worst choice available to them.

Recasting the central, lead AND title role of an ongoing show between seasons while not impossible (though I can't think of a comparable situation in television outside of a sudden death of a cast member) is a nightmare scenario. They crafted the character around Ruby Rose and visa verse. It was a tailor made fit and it worked. Replacing her with a new actress would be literally like trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Again; possible, but incredibly difficult AND they're on the clock. Remember they had almost a full year of lead time developing the show with Ruby after her introduction in 'Elseworlds'. Now they have a few months at best to 1) find someone that can do it, and 2) find a way to make it work that doesn't give the audience whiplash.

A soft reboot just makes the most sense if they have a hope of pulling this off. It won't be smooth, it won't be pretty, it'll probably mean the show doesn't get a third season, but it has a better chance at it than the alternative.

 

[DigificWriter]

This is not a case of "fandom reacting negatively prematurely without thinking", no matter how many times people keep trying to paint it as such.

Honestly I think Ruby jumping ship just put she show-runners between a rock and a hard place. On balance, I think they picked the least worst choice available to them.

Recasting the central, lead AND title role of an ongoing show between seasons while not impossible (though I can't think of a comparable situation in television outside of a sudden death of a cast member) is a nightmare scenario. They crafted the character around Ruby Rose and visa verse. It was a tailor made fit and it worked. Replacing her with a new actress would be literally like trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.

Again; possible, but incredibly difficult AND they're on the clock. Remember they had almost a full year of lead time developing the show with Ruby after her introduction in 'Elseworlds'. Now they have a few months at best to 1) find someone that can do it, and 2) find a way to make it work that doesn't give the audience whiplash.

A soft reboot just makes the most sense if they have a hope of pulling this off. It won't be smooth, it won't be pretty, it'll probably mean the show doesn't get a third season, but it has a better chance at it than the alternative.

Nothing about this post is accurate.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Well, they weren't okay with it back then. It's safe to say there was a ton of audience uproar at the time about replacing Michael Keaton with Val Kilmer.

I don't remember a backlash at the time (to Kilmer at least...) but it was 25 years ago so I can't say for sure. It was the highest grossing film that year and made more money than Returns so it did OK. I suspect there would've been more backlash if Batman wasn't Bruce Wayne.

Not to say they can't go the new character route or that maybe somehow it would work but I think it will certainly be a challenge.

 

[Samurai8472]

I actually agree with the Fives on this one as well. The only thing the supporting cast has in common is their connection to Kate, and other than the murder of Lucius Fox every plot thread hinges on Kate's character.

What? Are we cylons now? LOL