CW Gotham Knights show from Batwoman writers in the works

[neatoman]

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?

[Leo656]

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".

[neatoman]

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.

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by neatoman

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?

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.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Autbot_Benz

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.

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by neatoman

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

no worries.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by neatoman

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 in flawless when it comes to taste, but doing despite noting 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.

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.

[Andrew NDB]

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.

[superstaff]

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

In Gotham Knights, 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 places as this team of mismatched fugitives will become its next generation of saviors. The series will star Oscar Morgan as Turner Hayes, Anna Lore as Stephanie Brown, Olivia Rose Keegan as Duela Dent, Navia Robinson as Carrie Kelley, Fallon Smythe as Harper Row, Tyler DiChiara as Cullen Row, and Misha Collins as Harvey Dent.

Gotham Knights will be produced by Warner Bros. Television and Berlanti Productions, as is the case with the other DC series on The CW. Chad Fiveash, James Stoteraux, and Natalie Abrams are writing the script while Fiveash and Stoteraux will executive produce with Greg Berlanti, Sarah Schechter, and David Madden of Berlanti Productions. Abrams will serve as a co-executive producer. Fiveash and Stoteraux currently serve as executive producers on Batwoman and have credits on Gotham, Krypton, and The Vampire Diaries. Abrams has written for Batwoman, Supergirl, and All American on The CW.

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! It's my new Batwoman. Don't disappoint me, CW!

[Autbot_Benz]

Originally Posted by superstaff

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.

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.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by Autbot_Benz

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.

[CyberCubed]

Originally Posted by Autbot_Benz

they don't want two shows with Two Dicks . .

Out of context this line is pretty funny.

[ZariusTwo]

[superstaff]

I can't wait. 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.

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?

[Leofan26]

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.

[Sumac]

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?

[ZariusTwo]

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?

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

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?

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.

[ZariusTwo]

Originally Posted by superstaff

I'm guessing you are because you love taking potshots at me.

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.

[superstaff]

Originally Posted by ZariusTwo

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.

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.