• 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!

CW network working on Batwoman series

Is there a specific reason why Batwoman is so pale in the comics?

I figured it was just because she was a natural redhead. Although as Reverend says, it's probably exaggerated for aesthetic effect, reminiscent of how the New Batman Adventures Catwoman had pure white skin when she was in costume (though not in her civilian look, a difference that was never explained).


I disagree, and honestly believe that if Batman were meant to exist in the universe of the show, he would've been referenced in the synopsis.

It's in the Arrowverse. We know Bruce Wayne exists on Earth-1 because Oliver name-dropped him, and it's been all but explicitly stated that Batman exists on Earth-38 (Superman's vigilante friend with lots of gadgets, lots of baggage, and something pointy sticking up from the sides of his head).

Besides, it's not a "synopsis," it's just a brief, initial press announcement, way too cursory to treat as definitive. We can't make firm conclusions about any aspect the show based on a measly couple of sentences. Obviously we'll find out for sure one way or the other once we actually see the show; until then, the sensible thing is to keep an open mind.



I guess my main issue with this character is that if she has nothing much to do with Bruce, why crib his look? And if they don't even see eye to eye, why does he allow her to continue to operate as such?
I mean I know it's "because the editor says so" but from an in-universe perspective it seems very odd, especially since they made a whole thing in the comics about Bruce (figuratively) stripping Huntress of her bat costume when she tried to be the new Batgirl and screwed it up. He's usually very finicky about the "no killing" thing.

Well, Batgirl was always more directly linked to Batman, so maybe Huntress felt that Batman had the right to decide who got to wear the mantle. Kate Kane may have been inspired by Batman to become a vigilante in a similar way to Barbara Gordon, but she chose to pursue it more independently. I gather that Batman did disapprove of her using the imagery at first, but she just refused to let him dictate to her what she could do, so he had to grudgingly accept it.
 
^ As I noted earlier, Supergirl's Bat reference was gender-neutral, and Bruce can exist without Batman existing.

We're losing the point, though, which is that the existence of Batman directly impacts how Kate is handled as a hero, making that question - even if we were never to see him - an important detail to have in even as brief a synopsis/description as we've been given.

And that's not even getting into a direct analysis of how the synopsis we've gotten is worded and what said wording implies.
 
We're losing the point, though, which is that the existence of Batman directly impacts how Kate is handled as a hero, making that question - even if we were never to see him - an important detail to have in even as brief a synopsis/description as we've been given.

It only seems to be important to you here, since nobody else is making a big deal out of this wouldn't that indicate it's not really that important... :shrug:
 
The example you used, the Arrow/Flash thing, never gets brought up. Even though Flash could solve all of Ollie's villain problems in a jiffy, nobody ever wonders "What would Flash do? Why doesn't he swoop in and help?"
I actually do this quite frequently (maybe even to the annoyance of my wife) when watching ALL of the DC shows. Ollie has a problem? "Where is Supergirl?" Barry is facing a supervillain who has gotten away or even defeated him multiple times? "Where is Supergirl, or Canary, or...?"

The reverse is true, too. Something the Legion did in Supergirl this season had me wondering where the Time Bureau is, or the Earth-38 universe equivalent, because that'd be a higher numbered anomaly than any we've seen on Legends, I'd have to think...
 
Well, Batgirl was always more directly linked to Batman, so maybe Huntress felt that Batman had the right to decide who got to wear the mantle.
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that her feelings on the matter were relevant. He didn't really ask her for her input.
 
You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that her feelings on the matter were relevant. He didn't really ask her for her input.

You're talking about what's relevant to him. I'm talking about what's relevant to the two women, because that's where the difference must lie. Batman disapproved of both of them equally, but Huntress accepted his disapproval and gave up the Batgirl mantle while Batwoman said "Screw you" and kept on doing her own thing. So it's their motivations that are relevant here, not just his. Kate wasn't as willing to accept Batman's imperative, or as intimidated by him, as Helena was. At least, that's how it seems to me.
 
Regarding Batman "allowing" Batwoman to operate in "his" city. This has been an ongoing issue between them which remains unresolved. He was not happy about her operating without his sanction at first, but perhaps grudgingly conceded that she was doing more good than harm--and was a valuable ally at times. (It's perhaps worth noting that, in the comics, Batwoman started operating at a point where Batman had gone missing and wasn't around to object. By the time he returned to Gotham, after "52," she had already proven herself to a degree.)

Where we stand now: As BATWOMAN #16, which came out just a few weeks ago, Batman told Batwoman that she already had two strikes against her, because of recent events. One more and he would shut her down . ...

So, as far as Batman is concerned, she's on probationary status. Not sure Batwoman agrees.
 
So, as far as Batman is concerned, she's on probationary status. Not sure Batwoman agrees.

Doubtful.

IMO, the best way to square the expectation that Batman will be involved (given that he was a source of inspiration for Kate in the comics), is to follow the lead of the DCEU and plan for an older Bruce Wayne who may have been Batman in the past but has now semi-retired, although I wouldn't be adverse to him cameoing occassionally (especially if he's mostly played as a rival mentor against her father).
 
^ There's no reason to cater to the expectation of his involvement at all, and based on the snyopsis, it doesn't sound like he is.
 
I wonder if Batwoman is being developed as a replacement for one of the existing shows (Arrow?) or will we be seeing a five-way crossover in the 2019/20 season?
 
Edit: Possible details on the series pretty heavily suggest that Batman doesn't exist:
http://thathashtagshow.com/2018/07/exclusive-batwoman-casting-episode-details-arrowverse/

I see absolutely nothing there to suggest that. I suspect you're getting that solely from the sentence "In a city desperate for a savior, Kate must overcome her own demons before embracing the call to be Gotham’s symbol of hope," which was in the initial press statement released days ago. But one shouldn't take a publicity blurb like that too literally, since advertising often exaggerates or misrepresents things for effect. Even if it's accurate, there are several possible interpretations other than "Batman doesn't exist." As someone suggested before, it could be that Batman has already retired or gone missing, as in the Birds of Prey TV series. Or maybe something happened to discredit him in the public's minds, a la The Dark Knight.
 
It occurs to me that despite the crossover not including the Legends of Tomorrow show, that doesn't preclude the crossover including some of the Legends of Tomorrow characters.
 
I'm looking forward to the seduction scene with Supergirl and Batgirl. :lol:
Outside of porn and male fantasies, that's not really something that happens with lesbians. There's sometimes some innocent flirting, but they don't go around trying to seduce straight women.
 
Regarding Batman "allowing" Batwoman to operate in "his" city. This has been an ongoing issue between them which remains unresolved. He was not happy about her operating without his sanction at first, but perhaps grudgingly conceded that she was doing more good than harm--and was a valuable ally at times. (It's perhaps worth noting that, in the comics, Batwoman started operating at a point where Batman had gone missing and wasn't around to object. By the time he returned to Gotham, after "52," she had already proven herself to a degree.)

Where we stand now: As BATWOMAN #16, which came out just a few weeks ago, Batman told Batwoman that she already had two strikes against her, because of recent events. One more and he would shut her down . ...

So, as far as Batman is concerned, she's on probationary status. Not sure Batwoman agrees.

I know I'm probably making it seem like this bugs me more than it really does, and that the real reason for my issues with all of this is due more to real world editorial realities than the in-universe narrative. So there's probably no good answer to be found.

Still, I don't think I can get past the basic character logic problem of her not agreeing with Batman's outlook, yet co-opting his image anyway. Seems hypocritical.
I don't know, I guess I feel like if they want her to have that particular outlook and personality, they should either have a different reason for her dressing how she does (e.g. refugee from alternate future/universe or something) or just have her drop the whole bat thing altogether and find her own identity. Which honestly seems like a more positive, less restricting direction for the character.
Which of course they won't so long as they want to sell books with "Batwoman" on the cover. I guess it just bugs me to no end when editorial edicts run against the grain of logical character motivation and narrative. Makes the whole thing feel arbitrary and usually takes me right out of the story.

And let's be honest, under any other conditions Bruce probably wouldn't give a hero cribbing his style and operating on his home turf a "three strikes and you're out" warning. It'd be one strike and they're history...which is pretty much what went down with Helena IIRC.
 
I know I'm probably making it seem like this bugs me more than it really does

You're overthinking this, Kate wasn't. :p

Her origin is after being kicked out of the military for being gay she wandered about aimless, till one night she stumbled out of a bar drunk, got attacked by some guy, proceeded to kick the crap out of him just as Batman was belatedly arriving to help. At that point she realized that Batman can be anyone, and she could go out and help people too.

And once she decided to go the vigilante path, she didn't stop to think "I'm gonna be The Ginger Fury!" or whatever, she just went out to punch baddies and help people, dressed in black, and that just evolved into Batwoman...
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top