[TV] Batwoman

[Zaktar]

“In a joint statement, Berlanti Prods. and WBTV reaffirmed their commitment to Batwoman and to casting another LGBTQ actress in the groundbreaking role.”

I remember when actors were cast based on talent. Plenty of gay actors have played straight roles and vise versa, so not sure why they need a LBGT actor to play Batwoman simply because Batwoman is a lesbian.

Why should it bother anyone that someone wants to make that choice? Are we worried that there aren't enough parts for straight actors or something?

[niztheundead87]

Why should it bother anyone that someone wants to make that choice? Are we worried that there aren't enough parts for straight actors or something?

I thought that hiring people based on their sexual preferences is illegal

[Okacz]

“In a joint statement, Berlanti Prods. and WBTV reaffirmed their commitment to Batwoman and to casting another LGBTQ actress in the groundbreaking role.”

Random nitpick for the start of the day: why do they say they are looking for LGBTQ actress? They are obviously looking for a lesbian or bi, right? Not really for a transgender one, or whatever Q means, why use the whole acronym. Or does she have to be all the letters to qualify?

[Zaktar]

I thought that hiring people based on their sexual preferences is illegal

In most places it is legal, and casting decisions in a creative endeavor are allowed more flexibility with laws related to discrimination. Partly to allow for creative freedom, partly to allow businesses to give in to customer preference.

[niztheundead87]

In most places it is legal, and casting decisions in a creative endeavor are allowed more flexibility with laws related to discrimination. Partly to allow for creative freedom, partly to allow businesses to give in to customer preference.

yet it didnt work the way they wanted hence the flop

[Zaktar]

yet it didnt work the way they wanted hence the flop

Inasmuch as it flopped, it was because it was badly written, stupid; as far as I'm aware the casting had nothing to do with it. Apparently it was one of the most successful shows on that network so /shrug

[niztheundead87]

Inasmuch as it flopped, it was because it was badly written, stupid; as far as I'm aware the casting had nothing to do with it. Apparently it was one of the most successful shows on that network so /shrug

yeah so succesful the protagonist left

[Dald]

Bad show with bad writers with a not-so-pleasant leading lady to work around. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

[exochaft]

I thought that hiring people based on their sexual preferences is illegal

Well... as with many things that fall into this arena, it's all about intent. When it comes to actors/actresses, what normally would be discrimination actually falls under qualification for the job, but there are limits. For example, if a role requires a certain skin color, you can advertise and hire based upon skin color. However, it's fairly obvious how murky such laws get, because many times you don't necessarily know intent and some criterion are highly subjective... and we're getting to the point where most people don't care about intent anyways.

If Warner Bros is hiring someone to take over the Batwoman role and stipulating they have to be LGBTQ+ (or whatever the alphabet soup is nowadays), that falls into questionable hiring practices. Hiring a woman for the role of Batwoman seems fairly straightforward and reasonable, but hiring someone based upon who they like to have sex with doesn't translate well to requirements for the role of Batwoman. Unless Batwoman is going to have sex scenes with certain partners of a certain persuasion and they need an actress okay doing said scenes, such hiring requirements are highly suspect. While I could keep going down this rabbit whole, it gets highly political fast, so I'll just leave it at this: Warner Bros should hire the best actress for the job, regardless of sexual preference, if they want to have a shot at recovering the show.

I've seen a decent amount of the first season, and the content from casting choices to how it's developed/scripted/etc heavily lines up the hiring practices espoused by Warner Bros as of late. Basically, the show feels agenda-driven to the point that making the show fun and entertaining got left behind (or was expendable for the sake of messaging). It's not surprising that the show isn't very well-received, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was a main driver for the lead actress to leave the show. A lot of the other reasons I've heard seem more like convenient excuses, aside from potentially working on another project... but if said project seems like it'll be better for her career, Batwoman's poor showing is still the driving force. If anything, Warner Bros should fire all the script writers before even finding a new lead, as the first season's writing was downright offensive on so many levels. I can't even joke that it's on the level of an average fanfic, because I've seen much better writing from fanfics.

[Kumorii]

Why should it bother anyone that someone wants to make that choice? Are we worried that there aren't enough parts for straight actors or something?

Lol, silly statement. People complain because it shouldn't matter. You know, a quite open minded position to have that's not discriminatory. Meanwhile having such preferences shows discriminatory behavior based on sexual preferences. And you wonder why people find it to be in bad taste?

Treating everyone as equals is good. They are allowed to make that choice absolutely. Doesn't mean people can't dislike their reason.

[Gallahadd]

I thought that hiring people based on their sexual preferences is illegal

NOT hiring people based on sexual preference etc is illegal.

Hiring them because it "fits" the role is very much legal and for some part of the internet, all but required.

See also: White people voicing PoC characters in cartoons, Men writing Women, and race/gender bending characters.

[Dorfadin]

Still amazed the show didn't get cancelled, same viewing figures as what season 5 Supergirl ended on(or near enough), I reckon if it makes it to season 5 it will have 10k viewers or less :P

[Gallahadd]

Sign of the times. People complained why a disabled person is portrayed by a not disabled actor. Damn you Daniel Day-Lewis and that shitty film "My left foot" etc ....wouldn't float these days, your career would be ruined ^^

Never forget that people actually complained that they didn't get someone with ALS to play Stephen Hawking in Theory of Everything.

A film where maybe 80% of the run time would be him walking around, out of the chair...

[niztheundead87]

NOT hiring people based on sexual preference etc is illegal.

Hiring them because it "fits" the role is very much legal and for some part of the internet, all but required.

See also: White people voicing PoC characters in cartoons, Men writing Women, and race/gender bending characters.

Read slowly what nonsense you just said and see how wrong you are

[ati87]

Lol, silly statement. People complain because it shouldn't matter. You know, a quite open minded position to have that's not discriminatory. Meanwhile having such preferences shows discriminatory behavior based on sexual preferences. And you wonder why people find it to be in bad taste?

Treating everyone as equals is good. They are allowed to make that choice absolutely. Doesn't mean people can't dislike their reason.

And why is it that when you have an fictional character being played by an black actor that those same people will go around and bitch but when an different character (who isn't white) is being played by an white actor that they suddenly become silent?

People that bitch about this don't care about equality.

[Darththeo]

I thought that hiring people based on their sexual preferences is illegal

It's casting, they are allowed certain aspects. For example, you don't hire a white man to play a black woman.

The role may dictate certain things, and there is no point hiring someone that doesn't fit.

[Kumorii]

And why is it that when you have an fictional character being played by an black actor that those same people will go around and bitch but when an different character (who isn't white) is being played by an white actor that they suddenly become silent?

People that bitch about this don't care about equality.

Because the ones you describe are indeed not doing it for equality. Problem is you think majority does as described. Fairly sure majority ain't racists and sexists. But if you have the view that they are, then I can't do much than change it. I rather presume people have good intentions until proven otherwise rather than opposite.

You know when people straight up say "we will choose people of this group of people" (especially when it doesn't matter in this case, since both straight, bi, trans, gay etc can play any sexuality character) they are straight up being discriminatory, there is no if or buts about it. Why is it odd that people are against it? Well, except you claim them to be hypocrites. But here you are trying to handwave it or defend their choice... which makes you defending discriminatory behaviour. Would you say you are discriminating or trying to see everyone as equals?

[Darththeo]

Still amazed the show didn't get cancelled, same viewing figures as what season 5 Supergirl ended on(or near enough), I reckon if it makes it to season 5 it will have 10k viewers or less :P

Honestly, Season 1 through 3 of Supergirl was worse. And Batwoman I think is expected to fill the hole from Arrow as CW didn't pick up Green Arrow and the Canaries (hoping Season 6 of Legends will resolve that plotline).

Honestly, Ruby as Kat Kane was not interesting to me, least interesting character (save to one unneeded character) in the entire series.

[ati87]

Because the ones you describe are indeed not doing it for equality. Problem is you think majority does as described. Fairly sure majority ain't racists and sexists. But if you have the view that they are, then I can't do much than change it. I rather presume people have good intentions until proven otherwise rather than opposite.

You know when people straight up say "we will choose people of this group of people" (especially when it doesn't matter in this case, since both straight, bi, trans, gay etc can play any sexuality character) they are straight up being discriminatory, there is no if or buts about it. Why is it odd that people are against it? Well, except you claim them to be hypocrites. But here you are trying to handwave it or defend their choice... which makes you defending discriminatory behaviour. Would you say you are discriminating or trying to see everyone as equals?

Would you say that given the history of miscasting straight white actors that maybe you now have studios trying to do things different? Having a long history of failures usually does that.

[Kumorii]

Would you say that given the history of miscasting straight white actors that maybe you now have studios trying to do things different? Having a long history of failures usually does that.

Sure...doesn't make it less discriminatory. I know people think you fight discrimination by doing "positive discrimination"... I don't buy into that. Treat people as equals and we good. As long as people defend the behaviour with "but I do it for good reasons" then it will never be changed. Because literally every single racist/sexist/bigot obviously doing the choice because they think it's the good choice. You are rationalising it in the same way "the others" do.

All you saying is that you are ok with discriminatory behaviour, but only a certain kind. Same as the ones you complain about.