CW network working on Batwoman series

[Christopher]

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.

Not at all. You can be inspired by someone's ideas without feeling constrained to limit yourself to them. You can agree with their core elements but believe the originator hasn't taken them far enough, or isn't seeing the full possibilities. It's often that way with mentors and proteges, or with role models and those they inspire.

Besides, Kate's a soldier, and so I'd imagine that she fights with whatever weapons are useful to her. In Gotham, the iconography of the Bat carries power that's useful to a vigilante. So maybe it's a means to an end for her.

As for why Batman treats Batwoman differently than he treated Helena-as-Batgirl... I'm only partially conversant with the stories, but the impression I get is that Batwoman did more tangible good along the way, and Batman recognized the value of that. Perhaps Helena just didn't do enough good to earn another chance when she screwed up.

 

[JD]

^ 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.

I don't really see how anything in the synopsis, which I've read several times, rules out Batman existing.
If he does, I could see not wanting to mention about him in the early publicity, since all that would do is start people discussing how much of role he'll play, rather than discussing Batwoman.
After the Supergirl synopsis mentioned Superman, I saw tons of people all over discussing how long it would be before he showed up, how often he was going to show up, how big of a role he would have, ect. Maybe they're just trying to avoid that this time.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I could see with Supergirl, Superman having to be mentioned since he is her cousin and their origins are so tied together. But I really don’t think he needed to ever show up other than a brief mention in the pilot. Otherwise just let her do her own thing, she has the same powers and doesn’t really need his help. If she needs to team up with another hero bring in Barry, the two are adorable together. It’s like a puppy and kitten teaming up to solve cute mysteries.


At the most have Kate mention her brooding cousin once. If she ever bumps into Kara, maybe they can share a laugh over having so many people convinced their cousins are somehow better than them.

 

[Reverend]

You're overthinking this, Kate wasn't.

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...

I know context is important and I know the book is reasonably well regarded, so I'm sure the stories themselves are well written. But taking a step back from all that, there's just something fundamentally squiffy about it. Even if she started out as generic vigilante person #583, she didn't just randomly end up with bat ears, the cape and the symbol, then look in the mirror one day, shrug and go "welp, guess I'm Batwoman now!" There has to be a conscious choice there.

What trips me up is the contradiction inherent in the premise. I can see her admiring Batman's effectiveness and misunderstanding his ethos to the point where she's misguided in her belief that she's furthering his mission. But if that's the case then there's just no way Bruce doesn't shut her down, one way or another.
If on the other hand she does correctly understand what Batman is about but doesn't agree and does things her own way (all perfectly fair from a character perspective) then taking on his image makes no sense...unless of course she's setting out to remove and replace him, which while an interesting idea, I don't think that's where they're going with it.

I mean just for the sake of argument, imagine a powered individual who looks at Superman and says to themselves "I like what he's doing, but he's not doing it right. I can do better!" Then proceeds to don the cape, the 'S' and goes around lobotomising supervillians with their laser vision. That's the plot of an anti-hero, and one that Clark would come down on like a ton of rectangular building things in two seconds flat.

I think as was pointed out before, the only world in which this really makes sense is one where Bruce is no longer around, which is how the character debuted in the first instance. Batman isn't around to defend his ideals and his absence (or death) could be seen as evidence he was wrong all along. That I can see working and who knows, maybe that's how the TV show will approach it.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I know context is important and I know the book is reasonably well regarded, so I'm sure the stories themselves are well written. But taking a step back from all that, there's just something fundamentally squiffy about it. Even if she started out as generic vigilante person #583, she didn't just randomly end up with bat ears, the cape and the symbol, then look in the mirror one day, shrug and go "welp, guess I'm Batwoman now!" There has to be a conscious choice there.

What trips me up is the contradiction inherent in the premise. I can see her admiring Batman's effectiveness and misunderstanding his ethos to the point where she's misguided in her belief that she's furthering his mission. But if that's the case then there's just no way Bruce doesn't shut her down, one way or another.
If on the other hand she does correctly understand what Batman is about but doesn't agree and does things her own way (all perfectly fair from a character perspective) then taking on his image makes no sense...unless of course she's setting out to remove and replace him, which while an interesting idea, I don't think that's where they're going with it.

I mean just for the sake of argument, imagine a powered individual who looks at Superman and says to themselves "I like what he's doing, but he's not doing it right. I can do better!" Then proceeds to don the cape, the 'S' and goes around lobotomising supervillians with their laser vision. That's the plot of an anti-hero, and one that Clark would come down on like a ton of rectangular building things in two seconds flat.

I think as was pointed out before, the only world this really makes sense is one where Bruce is no longer around, which is how the character debuted in the first instance. That I can see working and who knows, maybe that's how the TV show will approach it.

Batman is a symbol in Gotham, it makes sense that others would adopt it. Even Superman has a few others adopting his symbol, like Steel.

 

[Reverend]

Batman is a symbol in Gotham, it makes sense that others would adopt it. Even Superman has a few others adopting his symbol, like Steel.

Of course, but that's not the part I'm questioning. It's the part where Batman doesn't take them down. The last thing he needs is a copycat wannabe going too far, even putting criminals in the morgue instead of the ICU.
To take that example; if Steel started killing people with that hammer, with that symbol on his chest, would Clark give him a free pass?

 

[dahj]

What trips me up is the contradiction inherent in the premise. I can see her admiring Batman's effectiveness and misunderstanding his ethos to the point where she's misguided in her belief that she's furthering his mission

I think you're misunderstanding her character. When she starts out she really doesn't give a crap about who Batman is and what he does, or if she's "furthering his mission" whatever that may be. She's on her mission. They only get introduced later on and then the conflict between their personalities occasionally plays out, but by this point she's already well established as Batwoman so I really don't see any issues with the premise of her character ...

 

[Awesome Possum]

Of course, but that's not the part I'm questioning. It's the part where Batman doesn't take them down. The last thing he needs is a copycat wannabe going too far, even putting criminals in the morgue instead of the ICU.
To take that example; if Steel started killing people with that hammer, with that symbol on his chest, would Clark give him a free pass?

Does she go around killing villains?

I really find the idea that she needs Batman’s permission to be a hero bizarre.

 

[Reverend]

I think you're misunderstanding her character.

Quite possibly.

When she starts out she really doesn't give a crap about who Batman is and what he does, or if she's "furthering his mission" whatever that may be. She's on her mission. They only get introduced later on and then the conflict between their personalities occasionally plays out, but by this point she's already well established as Batwoman so I really don't see any issues with the premise of her character ...

OK, so if she's on her own mission...why is she dressed like Batman? I know I'm harping on this a bit much, but I really feel that if someone is going to don the iconic cape and cowl, they really need to have a *very* good reason for choosing that uniform, specifically.

Symbols mean things and by adopting Batman's symbolism, she's either adopting what he stands for, or she's co-opting it. If it's the former, then there's no issue, but if it's the latter then that demands a response and a reckoning. So far as I'm given to understand, none of this is the case, which to me reads as hand-wavey "because the editor said so" reasoning.

Does she go around killing villains?

I'm somewhat operating from a position of ignorance here having not read any of her books since the '52' days and I don't recall much of that. Mostly I'm going by what people have been posting here in regards to her more recent books. And yes, someone up thread did mention her using lethal force. I'm just taking them at their word.

I really find the idea that she needs Batman’s permission to be a hero bizarre.

So do I. But yet again, that's not the argument I'm making.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I don’t think Batman owns a copyright on bat imagery.

 

[Reverend]

I don’t think Batman owns a copyright on bat imagery.

You're welcome to point that out to him.

 

[Awesome Possum]

You're welcome to point that out to him.

Well he’s not real so there’s not much he can do about it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Of course, but that's not the part I'm questioning. It's the part where Batman doesn't take them down. The last thing he needs is a copycat wannabe going too far, even putting criminals in the morgue instead of the ICU.
To take that example; if Steel started killing people with that hammer, with that symbol on his chest, would Clark give him a free pass?

To be clear, in the comics, Batman wasn't around when Batwoman debuted, so she had a good year to prove herself before Batman returned to Gotham. As I recall, Nightwing was the first member of the Bat-Family to encounter her and, after some initial friction, they managed to work together effectively. Presumably he put in a good word for her when Batman came back. ("She's the real deal, Bruce. She's making a difference.")

And it's not like she goes around killing criminals indiscriminately. She's just slightly more comfortable with the notion of lethal force, that's all. She's not the Punisher.

Finally, unlike the Huntress, she was able to pull the family card. She's Batman's dead mother's niece so that earns him some points with her--although, as of last issue, he informed her that she can only play the "Martha" card once.

That's how they're handling it in the comics at least. Who knows how the TV show will handle it?

 

[Kemaiku]

I don’t think Batman owns a copyright on bat imagery.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Batman_vs._Dracula

He does run into someone who already had the image going for few centuries before him...

 

[Reverend]

To be clear, in the comics, Batman wasn't around when Batwoman debuted, so she had a good year to prove herself before Batman returned to Gotham. As I recall, Nightwing was the first member of the Bat-Family to encounter her and, after some initial friction, they managed to work together well. Presumably he put in a good word for her when Batman came back. ("She's the real deal, Bruce. She's making a difference.")

And it's not like she goes around killing criminal indiscriminately. She's just slightly more comfortable with the notion of lethal force, that's all. She's not the Punisher.

Gotcha.
I'll be honest, the West Point background did make me think she was at least somewhat similar in that regard. Maybe not as blood thirsty as Frank, but with a similarly cold pragmatism. All of that would be perfectly valid either way from a character POV...but Bruce tends to be rather fanatical on the whole "we don't kill people" point. Emphatically so. And I guess I can't really see him letting that slide without a *very* compelling reason.

I guess I'm just mostly unclear as to her thought process behind choosing that image for herself. If Bruce is gone, it makes more sense, but once he's back, or with him in the mix in the first place...then it starts to feel a little off to me. Something here seems like it has to give way.

Finally, unlike the Huntress, she was able to pull the family card. She's Batman's dead mother's niece so that earns him some points with her--although, as last month, he informed her that she can only pull that card once.

That's how they're handling it in the comics at least. Who knows how the TV show will handle it?

Well if they have any sense they'll go the less convoluted route and have Bruce be "gone" from the outset. No need to compromise the integrity of the character and no need to address Batman in anything but the past tense. Two bats with one stone.

Well he’s not real so there’s not much he can do about it.

And Batwoman is real?

 

[Greg Cox]

Another thing from the comics the show might or might not use: At one point, Julia Pennyworth (daughter of Alfred) was working with Batwoman, handling the tech and operations stuff. Presumably the TV show is going to need a comparable character, so maybe Julia could fit the bill?

(In the comics, Julia had a foot in both camps. She was assisting Batwoman, while secretly reporting on her to Batman. Mixed loyalties and angst ensues.)

 

[Kai "the spy"]

And Batwoman is real?

You told @Awesome Possum to talk to Batman, not Batwoman.

 

[Awesome Possum]

And Batwoman is real?

No and I was never trying to argue that, you seem confused though.

 

[Christopher]

OK, so if she's on her own mission...why is she dressed like Batman?

Why do Protestants use crosses when they have their own beliefs and practices distinct in many ways from those of Catholics? The same symbol can carry different shades of meaning to different people.

And when dodge said she was on her own mission, I don't think they meant that her mission was fundamentally different from Batman's -- just that she's her own person who's making her own choices. They have the same basic mission -- to fight crime and protect the people of Gotham -- but she has her own views about the best way to carry it out.

I know I'm harping on this a bit much, but I really feel that if someone is going to don the iconic cape and cowl, they really need to have a *very* good reason for choosing that uniform, specifically.

She's a resident of Gotham City who chooses to become a vigilante. What other symbol would she adopt? As stated, she started out at a time when Batman was believed dead. Maybe she saw herself as filling the void he left, but doing it in her own way.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Bats are like pigeons in Gotham anyway.