• 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

I was thinking of the term Whiplash in terms of how fans are reacting to the various news already.

It was a shock for fans to learn Ruby Rose was leaving at all. But that came with the original promise that her role was merely being recast. That would be an adjustment in itself. But no wait in a short time they changed their minds and we learn they are creating a whole new character instead...

If the future of the show was left vague Ruby departed, instead of a false promise, maybe fans would be more open to this news.

I do not see much need to defend their creativity to try new ideas. Instead they appear to be fumbling on every level. The details are unknown as to why she left at this point. But clearly her casting did not work for the original intention. Which is to cast a lead for a series hoped to last for many seasons.

Clearly they had no clear plan on how to address her departure. Changing their minds makes them look indecisive. That they were so quick to change direction looks like desperation. Not creativity or about commitment to characters or story. This is about holding on presold season of episodes.
 
I've been trying to think how they might roll if they do go with a new character. Jacob hates Batwoman just for being Batwoman, so no need for Kate there. I was thinking Alice is psycho enough that she could be irrationally fueled by resentment that Batwoman isn't Kate, "How dare they think they can replace my sister like they replaced me?". Might be a little too meta and on-the-nose for how fans might feel though.

I'm not quite sure why new girl would pick up the mantle of the bat though without a history or connection. Since presumably RR won't be available for any sort of hand-off maybe Luke and Mary could decide the city needs a Batwoman in lieu of Kate's disappearance. After Mary keeps treating copycat batwomen in her clinic trying to fill the void and serve the city they decide they need a ringer to step in and recruit new girl.
 
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.

They already had the final two episodes of season 1 written, and were breaking down season 2. Now they have to scrap that, rewrite it, invent a new character, and either try and fit her in somehow into their existing plans and the stuff they've set up, or scrap it altogether and start fresh.

I'd say it's pretty obvious that continuing on with another actress in the same role and slowly tweaking the show to her strengths would have been a way simpler choice.

Exactly because they don't have time or money to build new sets, cast other supporting roles relevant to this new character we will be having not-Kate being in Kate's office, Kate's bar, Kate's sister's clinic, Kate's cousin's cave, Kate's dad's and ex's command centre and surrounded with Kate's family and friends. How's that supposed to be less whiplashy? :shrug:
 
It was a shock for fans to learn Ruby Rose was leaving at all. But that came with the original promise that her role was merely being recast. That would be an adjustment in itself. But no wait in a short time they changed their minds and we learn they are creating a whole new character instead...

Don't confuse when we heard about a decision for when that decision is made. I'm always surprised by the tendency of fans to assume that creators tell us every decision the instant they make it. That's just not how it works. I routinely sit on announcements for months before I'm cleared to tell anyone, because there's a whole process that things have to go through before they're solidly enough in place to be safe to announce.

As I said before, the fact that the news of Rose's departure came within days of the season finale means that they were probably holding off on the announcement until the season was over, so as not to put a damper on reactions to the final episodes by letting the news out too soon. The decision to replace Kate with a new lead most likely came well before anyone in the public had any idea Rose was leaving. I mean, it should be obvious that it would've taken the producers weeks to debate what to do, decide on a new story direction, create the new character, and write at least her first couple of scripts before they ever started sending out casting announcements. So they didn't make that decision because of our reactions. They made it before we knew anything about all this.


I've been trying to think how they might roll if they do go with a new character. Jacob hates Batwoman just for being Batwoman, so no need for Kate there. I was thinking Alice is psycho enough that she could be irrationally fueled by resentment that Batwoman isn't Kate, "How dare they think they can replace my sister like they replaced me?". Might be a little too meta and on-the-nose for how fans might feel though.

I think that's a pretty good idea, actually. It's not uncommon to use characters within a story as surrogates for an audience's discomfort with a change, because it lets the story engage with that discomfort and give the new characters a chance to prove themselves. Doctor Who did this with Ben and Polly when the Doctor regenerated for the first time, and with Rose Tyler for the first regeneration in the new series. Deep Space Nine and Voyager used Q as an audience surrogate, having him voice fan objections to the DS9 crew or fan sexism toward Janeway.


I'm not quite sure why new girl would pick up the mantle of the bat though without a history or connection. Since presumably RR won't be available for any sort of hand-off maybe Luke and Mary could decide the city needs a Batwoman in lieu of Kate's disappearance. After Mary keeps treating copycat batwomen in her clinic trying to fill the void and serve the city they decide they need a ringer to step in and recruit new girl.

Luke and Mary don't need to initiate the idea. You just said it -- there are a ton of wannabe Batwomen in Gotham already. The show just has to establish that one of them is good enough to do it for real.


They already had the final two episodes of season 1 written, and were breaking down season 2. Now they have to scrap that, rewrite it, invent a new character, and either try and fit her in somehow into their existing plans and the stuff they've set up, or scrap it altogether and start fresh.

Or rather, they already did that, well before we knew anything about it. And the fact that they decided to do it anyway despite the difficulties means they must think it's genuinely worth doing.


I'd say it's pretty obvious that continuing on with another actress in the same role and slowly tweaking the show to her strengths would have been a way simpler choice.

"Simpler" doesn't equal "better." Especially in creative fields, where being surprising and challenging is a strength, not a weakness.


Exactly because they don't have time or money to build new sets, cast other supporting roles relevant to this new character we will be having not-Kate being in Kate's office, Kate's bar, Kate's sister's clinic, Kate's cousin's cave, Kate's dad's and ex's command centre and surrounded with Kate's family and friends. How's that supposed to be less whiplashy? :shrug:

Why would you think they don't have time or money to make changes? It's between seasons, when such changes are routinely made, and production is delayed anyway, giving them even more time. And again, they obviously made this decision long before we heard about it. We're not participants, we're just the end users. We're the last people who are let into the loop for these things.
 
"Simpler" doesn't equal "better."

Who said it does?
Likewise, working on the show doesn't mean knowing what's better either.

Why would you think they don't have time or money to make changes?

Time, perhaps. Money, very much doubt it. The show already has a slightly bigger budget(or at least it seems to) than the the rest of the CW shows, and it's not really a big ratings hit to justify even more expense, so judging by how often other shows do this sort of thing I'd say we'll get one new set, maybe.

And the van.

We're not participants, we're just the end users.

So? The people working on this aren't some mysterious magi enveloped in secrets we cannot possibly understand so we mustn't question their decisions. We've all watched the show, and we can make reasonable deductions on how this or that will impact the show overall.
 
Time, perhaps. Money, very much doubt it. The show already has a slightly bigger budget(or at least it seems to) than the the rest of the CW shows, and it's not really a big ratings hit to justify even more expense, so judging by how often other shows do this sort of thing I'd say we'll get one new set, maybe.

I'm just saying, it's pretty typical for shows to build new sets between seasons.


So? The people working on this aren't some mysterious magi enveloped in secrets we cannot possibly understand so we mustn't question their decisions.

All I'm saying, for the umpteenth time, is not to assume you know 100% of the story based on the few paragraphs we've heard reported over the past week or two. It's easy to accuse others of being wrong. It's smarter to recognize our own potential to be wrong.


It is so bizarre having arguments like this. All I'm trying to say is "Be optimistic, there's at least a chance things could turn out well." Why in the world should that be controversial?
 
All I'm trying to say is "Be optimistic, there's at least a chance things could turn out well." Why in the world should that be controversial?

Blind optimism equals naivete.

You also keep ignoring several inescapable realities with this whole mantra of "be optimistic":
1) As was already pointed out, every principal set they have already built has an intrinsic connection to Kate, meaning that they now have to "junk" pretty much everything and start over

2) Without Kate, none of the current cast of characters has any reason to continue being part of the series going forward

3) As has been repeatedly mentioned, there is not a single ongoing storyline from the first season that can be organically carried over to Season 2 with this new character

A Batwoman series without Kate is "BINO" (Batwoman in name only) because you cannot simply write her out of the series and have it otherwise remain the same.

Period.

No amount of "being optimistic" is going to change that fact.

Also, the notion that they had a significant amount of time to adjust to Ruby's departure and still decided to "upend the tea table" in such haphazard fashion does not help convince people to trust that this isn't going to be the dumpster fire it presently appears to be.
 
Another plus for recasting is we would be able to call it a KINO.

Nope.

Ruby has no more ownership of the character of Kate than Angela Lansbury does over the character of Mrs. Lovett.

There is absolutely nothing "in name only" about bringing in a different actress to inherit the role of Kate because the character remains the same.
 
Coy and Vance Duke.

I thought it was weird, but I was relieved when Bo and Luke came back.
This is what I think could well happen with Batwoman. In fact I think that's why they're creating a whole new character, to leave the door open to Ruby Rose to come back, for which I pity the poor women who gets to play 'Ms. Wilder'. She's going to unfairly get backlash from some of the fans for taking the role and she'll be constantly looking over her shoulder lest RR returns just like Tom Wopat & John Schneider did towards the end of that season of Dukes of Hazard.

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.
Actually he played the character of Dillon, Boxey aka Troy was played by Kent McCord. Sorry to be a pedant. But then G80 was a totally different show to BSG TOS and one does have to wonder if the show had been as originally planned with Richard Hatch & Dirk Benedict reprising their roles as Apollo & Starbuck whether the show would have fared better.

I don't think that if Melissa Benoist or Cress Williams or Tyler Hoechlin were to leave Supergirl, Black Lightning or (once its established itself) Superman & Lois respectively, that they'd create a new character to replace them, so why do this for Batwoman? I'm also feeling insulted over the whole 'soap opera' comment. I mean aren't fans capable of accepting different actors playing the same role? There's currently four live action Bruce Waynes, Robert Pattinson in The Batman, Ben Affleck in Zack Snyder's Justice League, Iain Glen in Titans and whoever it is Hush was impersonating on Batwoman (I haven't seen the finale as its doesn't air here in Britain for another few weeks).
 
Last edited:
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. The difference is that the filmmakers didn't let their decisions be shaped by fan reactions to the same extent, because social media didn't amplify those reactions to the same degree as today.
Also, though, Val Kilmer was an equal Batman and a far better Bruce Wayne. I love Keaton, and he did great as the Bat, but his Bruce Wayne was just Michael Keaton. ;)
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.
Speaking just for me, I'd still give it a shot. It might be good, and I get tired of the other restaurant options even if they're good if I have them too often.
What? Are we cylons now? LOL
Clonetroopers, actually. :techman:
It is so bizarre having arguments like this. All I'm trying to say is "Be optimistic, there's at least a chance things could turn out well." Why in the world should that be controversial?
Without getting specifically political, recent events are showing plenty of much more fundamental matters that one might think would no longer be controversial, but somehow are. So I'd take some people arguing about anything less important as a given, really. :(
 
It is so bizarre having arguments like this. All I'm trying to say is "Be optimistic, there's at least a chance things could turn out well." Why in the world should that be controversial?

Optimism isn't controversial, it's that you frame your argument for optimism as everyone having any concern being a simpleton who doesn't understand writing and the creative process.
 
I don't think that if Melissa Benoist or Cress Williams or Tyler Hoechlin were to leave Supergirl, Black Lightning or (once its established itself) Superman & Lois respectively, that they'd create a new character to replace them, so why do this for Batwoman?

I imagine it depends on the specific situation. As some of us have suggested, maybe they wanted to leave the option for Ruby Rose to return on a recurring basis, which recasting would preclude. Also, Kate Kane has been Batwoman for a much shorter time than those other characters have been in their roles, so maybe that means it's not as inseparably attached to her (within the Arrowverse as opposed to the real world).

Plus, none of those shows is run by Carolyn Dries. That's what makes creativity worthwhile, that every creator makes choices that other creators wouldn't. Not all their choices work, but the fact that they get to make different choices rather than follow some rigid formula is hardly something to deplore.


I'm also feeling insulted over the whole 'soap opera' comment. I mean aren't fans capable of accepting different actors playing the same role?

Why assume she meant it insultingly? I mean, she's produced at least one soap opera, Melrose Place (and The Vampire Diaries might count too). She probably just meant that it's a common device in soap operas.



Also, though, Val Kilmer was an equal Batman and a far better Bruce Wayne. I love Keaton, and he did great as the Bat, but his Bruce Wayne was just Michael Keaton. ;)

That's my whole point. Fandom always reacts negatively to a change before they see it, but people often like the change after the fact.
 
I don't think that if Melissa Benoist or Cress Williams or Tyler Hoechlin were to leave Supergirl, Black Lightning or (once its established itself) Superman & Lois respectively, that they'd create a new character to replace them, so why do this for Batwoman?
I like Benoist, so I don't really want her going anywhere, but if she did, I think I'd enjoy seeing them follow up on a recent episode where we got to see Chyler Leigh in an alternate Supergirl costume by actually giving Alex the powers. She's a good actress, I liked the outfit, and there would be interesting stories to tell from there.
 
I don't see why they'd have to dump all of the preexisting characters just because Kate's not around. Sure "Ryan" won't have the same relationships with the characters, but that doesn't mean they can't find a why to work her into their lives and have her develop her own relationships with them.
Mary: Runs a underground clinic, and it sounds like Ryan is exactly the kind of person who would visit it. So many her and Mary become friends after she ends up a patient.
Luke: The Bat-tech guy, so obviously he's going to end up Ryan's tech guy the same as he was for Kate. They probably won't have the same preexisting relationship Kate had with him, but there's no reason he can't develop a new relationship with Ryan.
Alice: She might not be Ryan's sister, but she's still the top villain in Gotham right now, and like someone already said up thread, the fact that someone other than Kate is taking up the Batwoman identity is probably going to piss her off.
Sophie: OK, she's a bit more of a challenge, but she was an ally of Kate, so she might approach the new Batwoman assuming she's Kate, and start things off that way.
Jacob: He's didn't know Kate was Batwoman and hated her, and there's no reason to assume that will change.

I've seen a lot of shows going through pretty massive changes, and while I'm always nervous, most of the time she show ends up being just as good or even better after the change, so I've learned not to worry to much in these kinds of situations. As far as I know, this is pretty much still going to have the same writers and producers, and if they made a good show with Kate, I see no reason to think they can't do the same thing with "Ryan". Yeah, it'll be different, but that doesn't have to mean worse.
 
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

Two and a Half Men, MASH, Stargate SG-1, Charlie's Angels, Rosanne/Conners, ER---yeah a few of those are ensembles. Fun game though.
 
I don't see why they'd have to dump all of the preexisting characters just because Kate's not around.

The answer is in the question.

The character of Kate Kane isn't some "human puzzle piece" that you can just "swap out".

If you take her away, the "puzzle" that is Batwoman won't look correct and none of the other "pieces" will fit.
 
Alice: She might not be Ryan's sister, but she's still the top villain in Gotham right now, and like someone already said up thread, the fact that someone other than Kate is taking up the Batwoman identity is probably going to piss her off.
Sophie: OK, she's a bit more of a challenge, but she was an ally of Kate, so she might approach the new Batwoman assuming she's Kate, and start things off that way.
Jacob: He's didn't know Kate was Batwoman and hated her, and there's no reason to assume that will change.

Plus these three have their established relationships with one another, so those threads can continue. It'd just be more of an ensemble show, not so tightly woven around a single character.
 
Actually he played the character of Dillon, Boxey aka Troy was played by Kent McCord. Sorry to be a pedant. But then G80 was a totally different show to BSG TOS and one does have to wonder if the show had been as originally planned with Richard Hatch & Dirk Benedict reprising their roles as Apollo & Starbuck whether the show would have fared better.

I'm going to attribute the memory lapse to it being Galatica 1980 and the less remembered the better :)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top