“Batwoman” is based on the DC Comics character of the same name. Armed with a passion for social justice and a flair for speaking her mind, Kate Kane (Ruby Rose) soars onto the streets of Gotham as Batwoman, an out lesbian and highly trained street fighter primed to snuff out the failing city’s criminal resurgence.
Caroline Dries is the writer and executive producer on “Batwoman,” with Greg Berlanti, Sarah Schechter, Geoff Johns, and David Nutter also executive producing. Marcos Siega directed the pilot and is an executive producer. Berlanti Productions will produce in association with Warner Bros. Television.
I hope this does not just become “Virtue Signalling, the TV series” and her character is actually defined by more than just her sexuality. Putting “an out lesbian” in front like that as if it was a defining character trait for a superhero (when really, who cares?!) is a bit of a red flag to me.
But, to be fair, I had the same reservations about Black Lightning (just with race in that context, obv.), yet that show turned out to be rather varied and the characters about more than just their skin color. Well, okay… a few plot points were cringeworthy stereotypical (Looker, wtf), but by far not as bad as I had feared going in.
Also, what a cape. She could hide an army beneath that.
Also, does her Comic character pretty much go up against the same enemies as Batman? I assume they’re in the same universe, but I don’t really know anything about her character at all. The last Batgirl I ever saw was back when she was Commissioner Gordon’s daughter, in the 60s series. If I’m even remembering that right.
In the comics, Batwoman is part of the larger Bat-family, but they gave her plenty of personal enemies. She’s got a sister that went nuts and became a sort of Joker-type foil, her dad runs a rogue military organization, and there’s a whole weird religion of quasi-devil worshipers who revere Cain (as in Cain and Abel).
Oh, and she’s Batman’s cousin, not a grown-up Barbara Gordon/Batgirl.
The Nacy Drew news is interesting. Sarah Shahi starred in a grown up Nancy Drew pilot a few years back, post Person of Interest, but it didn’t get picked up. I feel like the character is better off as a teen or very early 20s at the oldest. This will probably do well for the CW.
I watched some of the Nancy Drew from 1995 when it showed up on Netflix. She was 21 and moved to “New York” which looked like a tiny Canadian suburb. There she took on mysteries like the case of the time the professor forgot his coat after class.
DC’s own splash page for Batwoman, the comic book, identifies her front and center as “one of the few openly gay superheroes” so if there’s any red flag here it’s you having a problem with it for no discernible reason. Her struggle for respect in her personal life is literally the defining trait of the character.
So for you “being gay/lesbian/anything” is a defining character trait, that a hero’s depiction should be all about. Not something like brave, cowardly, clever, conflicted, hesitant, dark secrets, … no, their sexuality is being put “front and center”.
When that really is something private that people shouldn’t care too much about.
How much depth or interesting story can you expect from a character who is being reduced to their sexuality? That’s what is a red flag here.
I don’t see a “Captain Hetero” anywhere. Why? Because it would be a ridiculously stupid character concept. Although it would admittedly make a hilarious caricature. Same is true for any character being reduced to a single aspect like that.
I get how struggle for respect can be a defining character trait, but sexuality should only be one part in that, if at all. But the way the character (at least in some texts about the series so far) is being reduced… well, if that’s not a red flag to you, then I don’t really know what else to tell you.
I hope it won’t turn into that, of course, that it’s just the usual media hype (which tends to focus on out-of-context attributes) and the series is actually cool.
No, you need to read better. DC Comics says that her sexuality is one of her defining traits. They list it as a central aspect of her character, and an essential part of their intent in creating her.
I mean, you can be Angry Online that a superhero is gay, if you want, I guess, but please don’t try to obscure reality while you do it. If you want a Batwoman whose sexuality isn’t a central part of her story and personality what you’re really saying is “I don’t want Batwoman.”
How does that make things better in any way? If true, that just means the original authors already made the character too one-dimensional.
Ah, okay, now I get what this is about.
Someone points out that a character defined by not much more than one trait lacks depth, this someone must then have something against whatever that trait is.
Whatever enables you to put people in easy to dismiss boxes, right?
I wonder what would have happened if they defined a character by their love for tuna. You’d now see me as a tuna-hater?
Dude, you started your part of the conversation by saying, effectively, “Gosh, I really hope they don’t make Batwoman anything like Batwoman because that would be Virtue Signaling.” You don’t get to do that and then also lecture other people about how they are seeking “easy to dismiss boxes.”
I’m not a comic aficionado by any means (I like some of the movies/series about them, but that’s about it), so not knowing whatever current iteration of Batwomen/Batgirl/whatever DC is rolling with isn’t exactly unlikely.
From my perspective, I raised legitimate concerns about lack of character depth. Something which still has not been addressed, btw. You basically just said “Yeah, she’s one-dimensional like that, that’s just who she is! Duh!”.
