CW Gotham Knights show from Batwoman writers in the works
 

A “Gotham Knights” TV series is in the works at The CW from three “Batwoman” writers, Variety has learned.

The project hails from writers Natalie Abrams, James Stoteraux, and Chad Fiveash. Stoteraux and Fiveash are executive producers on the show, with Abrams co-executive producing. Greg Berlanti, Sarah Schechter, and David Madden of Berlanti Productions will also executive produce. Warner Bros. Television is the studio.

“Gotham Knights” is based on the characters created for DC by Bob Kane and Bill Finger. It is not a spinoff of “Batwoman,” nor is it tied to the upcoming “Gotham Knights” video game.

In the show, in the wake of Bruce Wayne’s murder, his rebellious adopted son forges an unlikely alliance with the children of Batman’s enemies when they are all framed for killing the Caped Crusader. And as the city’s most wanted criminals, this renegade band of misfits must fight to clear their names. But in a Gotham with no Dark Knight to protect it, the city descends into the most dangerous it’s ever been. However, hope comes from the most unexpected of places as this team of mismatched fugitives will become its next generation of saviors known as the Gotham Knights.

Fiveash and Stoteraux are currently executive producers on “Batwoman,” which premiered its third season in October. Their other credits include “Gotham,” “Krypton,” and “The Vampire Diaries.” They are repped by Verve.

Abrams was formerly a writer for Entertainment Weekly. As a TV writer, she has written for “Batwoman,” “Supergirl,” and “All American.”

“Gotham Knights” is the latest DC show at the CW from the Berlanti camp. In addition to “Batwoman,” Berlanti Productions currently produces “The Flash,” “Legends of Tomorrow,” “Stargirl,” and “Superman and Lois” for the broadcaster. Fellow DC shows “Arrow” and “Supergirl” recently ended.

https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/got...cw-1235132524/

Ugh Tim Drake will be gay in this.

Haven't they already made him gay?

He's not gay, he's bi.

Which of course means he'll be gay forever in fiction.

As I told Leo, all bi men are basically gay.

Yeah. In nearly every major media that has a bisexual character (which isn't much), the bi character will basically only have same sex relationships. And the fans will basically only be allowed to ship them with same sex characters as well.

Hell, in real life, I've had people literally tell me I am not a 'true bisexual' because I am in a monogamous relationship with the opposite sex. Basically, bisexuals are expected/forced to only turn to the same sex.

Always find this position hilarious. Especially in leu of the fact, that it is LGB who usually hold it. So much for being "tolerant", "accepting" and "going against stereotypes".

There's a lot of hypocrisy in the LGBT+ community definitely, but that applies to virtually any and every group in my observation, regardless of race, religion, politics. People just suck, and are self serving when they feel like it.

I always feel bad for my bi friends, be they male or female. They tend to always get it from both ends (Hah-hah-hah), catching all kinds of grief from both straight people and "regular" gay people. "You're not bisexual, you're just afraid to pick a side." Like, what? That's gotta be pretty exhausting to hear all the time.

This always baffles me, whenever the marginalized groups can't get along. You'd think they'd know how it feels and not give each other so much of a hard time. But then, I genuinely believe that human nature is inherently tribal. So there's that.

So, wait. Is it going to focous on Nightwing or Tim Drake?

Tim and Dick are on HBOMax's Titans so I bet it might be Damian

"from Batwoman writers".

'nuff said. Hard pass.


Also, stop beating around the bush and actually make a good Batman show. Stop with this 'Batman's missing' or 'this is after he died' ********.

I agree, but what I hate the most is a sheer arrogance of it: calling others out on their supposed bigotry, while being just as bigoted against people who technically belong to your own group.

Wouldn't surprise me one bit if the comics people were "encouraged" to go that route because they knew in advance this was coming, with a gay Tim Drake.

First Two Cast Members have been announced and the characters they play reak of the Wokeness from Batwoman not surprising

Fallon Smythe & Tyler DiChiara Join CW Pilot 'Gotham Knights'

Smythe plays Harper Row. Described as streetwise, acerbic, and often underestimated, the blue-haired bisexual is a gifted engineer who can fix anything. But what Harper wants most of all is to repair the broken lives of her and her brother, Cullen, the only person she trusts.

DiChiara portrays Cullen Row. After years of hiding his true self from an abusive parent, the transgender teen is tired of being polite and agreeable. Clever and adept at reading human nature, Cullen is ready to fight his own battles.

https://deadline.com/2022/03/gotham-...se-1234972728/

Duela Dent and Carrie Kelly have been cast

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/got...an-1235200296/

Niva Robinson is black so Carrie Kelley is black in this show another redhead turned black.

Mischa Collins will play Harvey Dent

https://collider.com/gotham-knights-...s-harvey-dent/

Is it?

Batman didn't exist and was never mentioned until the Batwoman show started... then it turns out he has been around the whole time, except he left Gotham and has been missing for years or something. Now he will come back to die, I guess? Assuming this is Arrowverse?

Spoiler Stephanie Brown is in this show

https://comicbookmovie.com/tv/dc/bat...2871#gs.vkurh1

Holy SH*T, they cast a white girl to play a white girl? :teek: Jesus, it's been years since that happened. Sure this isn't an April Fool's Day prank?

I was going to post news of it being canned until I noticed it was from a notoriously unreliable site. Though it did lead me to notice it has a 3.5/10 on IMDB and a 23% audience score on RT.

It does make we wonder, why do these kinds of shows get lots of praise from professionals when the average person seems to hate them? Are they out of touch or do they feel like they're doing some kind of service?

Both. Critics ARE notoriously out of touch with their audience and always have been (check the "Fan Score vs. Critics Score" for almost any movie ever made), but in more recent years there's an outspoken "We need to Fight The Good Fight" level of "social conditioning" going on, whereas they'll insincerely talk up stuff that's "important" as a way of "schooling the bigots".

Well the whole "gotta fight the good fight" thing seems a bit silly to me, how exactly is promoting a piece of fiction about a woman in batsuit beating up criminals going to make the world a better place? We're not talking about... I don't know... An Orwell novel? I have trouble actually naming fiction that has genuinely helped alter the course of society unless it's misinformation disguised as something documentary, or where people argue that it has but the arguments seem rather flawed. I don't believe fiction, that is to say fiction that never claims to be anything other than fiction, has the kind of impact to change the world.

As for giving a bad show a good review, there isn't much of a point, is there? It's fine if it's you actual opinion, not everyone is flawless when it comes to taste, but doing it despite noticing the flaws? Yeah, you might sometimes convince it's better than it is if we are dealing with something barely below mediocre, but not when it's obviously bad. Here's what's going to happen if you do that:

1. Give a thing you know is terrible a good review because you think it will have some desirable outcome.
2. People who read your review, trusting your judgement, go and watch it.
3. They find out it is terrible and make their opinion known.
4. Either you stick to your guns and tarnish your reputation as a critic, or you backtrack and reveal you wrote a review in bad faith, also tarnishing your reputation.

It's so stupid, just say what you think and never mind the "greater good". Sometimes you might give a bad movie a good review or vice versa even when it's good faith but at least then your arguments will hold up better, and you don't necessarily ruin your reputation in that case.

I think you meant to post this in the Batwoman Thread. This is for the Gotham Knights show that has the Batwoman Writers on it. Gotham Knights hasn't aired yet its not even done filming.

Oh... Yeah, you're right sorry.

no worries.

It's part of the whole virtue signaling pushing the woke narrative thing. Like put a POC or gay character, despite the actual quality of the show, praise it to the high heavens, and then call anyone that doesn't like the show because it actually sucks a racist, homophobe, bigot, etc.

It's become such a cult these reviewers don't care about their reputation, except for fear of being cancelled for going against the narrative.

If you're part of the woke virtue signaling crowd, reap the rewards. Like buying membership into some kind of a secret union. For the arts this kind of thing is truly disgusting to me to see play out and grow in real time.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTIgNhMU...g&name=900x900

Looks like they are going with an original character as Robin? Turner Hayes is the lead, not Dick Grayson.

Man, I can't wait to hate-watch this! :lol: It's my new Batwoman. Don't disappoint me, CW!

Dick is already on the HBO Max Titans Show so they don't want two shows with Two Dicks . Titans also has Jason Todd and Tim Drake so guess they didn't wanna waste the good robins on this dreck.

I don't really like the Titans version of those characters...

Regardless, not sure why they can't have two different versions of Dick Grayson on two different shows. The Bat-Embargo is stupid.

Out of context this line is pretty funny.

I can't wait. :D :D :D LOL!

I have two legit questions:

Is this set in the Arrowverse?

Is Turner Bruce's biological son or...what? The trailer is super vague but it seems to imply he is.

Edit: Did some digging and Turner is adopted, ala Dick, Jason, etc. Yet he never knew Bruce was Batman? That's awkward. :lol:

I also found out that they made Cullen trans as opposed to gay. Why? Is being gay not 'oppressive' enough? Seems like an odd choice...but also not, I guess. I don't get why they race swapped Carrie still. If they wanted to use a black girl, why not use one of Lucius Fox's daughters for this? However, I'm probably more baffled by them changing Cullen from a bullied gay guy to a bullied trans man. Will changing gay characters to trans be the new changing redheads to black people?

I have to say it’s pretty stupid that they went with a made up Robin instead of Dick, it’s not going to make sense to any one DC comics fans or just people over all.

I think they are screw loose people writing on this show.

What. The. ****. Is. This. ****?

Besides, transpropaganda, what exactly is the plot of this crap?
Who thought this story would be a good idea and why include made up characters?

Internet Rambler: Enough with turning established characters gay/trans, why can't you create an original character?

Also Internet Rambler: why did you make an original character?:lol:

You make no sense here.

As far as I know, Turner isn't gay or trans. If he is then sure? Okay? It doesn't automatically make him a compelling character. For a story like this, that uses several other canonical Batman characters (even if in name only), it's odd that they use his OC instead of Dick or one of the other adopted sons Bruce has in the comics.

If you're directing this at my comment (which I'm guessing you are because you love taking potshots at me and have said I am a rambler...how very 'clever'), Cullen is an established DC character. He is gay. He already represents a marginalized group, and has his own backstory involving his sexuality. Making him trans is a strange choice, and I am baffled that they didn't just make someone like Turner the trans character since he has no previous affiliation with anyone from the comics, and instead changed Cullen, who is a gay character already.

I wasn't talking to you

And I've only taken potshots at you over you making an ass of yourself in the Rescue Rangers thread. Not before. You keep revising our history though, sure gives your 'brain' a workout.

You've been pretty rude to me at other times recently, and you seem to be directing your recent comment at me as well. It's pretty obvious since you seem to mean that I am 'rambling about why it's not allowed to have an original character be trans/gay' (and implying I am being homo/transphobic, too, super cool of you).

Thanks for going out of your way to be an ass to me. Super great look!

Edit: Noticed your edit there, Zar. Classy.

For real, if you can't play nice, get out of the sandbox.