Just read that Ruby Rose has quit Batwoman after one season. Unfortunately, the makers, in recasting, have said they are going to actively search for a LGBTQ actress for the part. I say unfortunately not because of the beliefs or lifestyle of the LGBTQ community, but because they are actively excluding anyone else that doesn't fall into that category. So much for equality.

"And I will fight to the death for the right to suspend disbelief and play roles beyond my experience."

That quote comes from the very liberal and equality minded Cate Blanchett, when asked about straight actors playing LGBTQ roles. It amounts to actors should be allowed to act.

The fact is, we have a "Cancel Culture" generation on social media and sometimes it does more harm trying to do good. Studios and film makers don't want protests and that's the bottom line more than equality. So things go too far the other way and actors like Scarlett Johansson have to back away from characters.

I wonder how this rather surprising departure will affect the show. When your lead leaves, doesn't that really kill it? I've had a hard time warming up to the characters and story arc thus far, and I don't think this will help that in any way.

All I've watched of the DC universe is the first season of The Flash (I bought the DVD set), the first four episodes of the 1st season of Supergirl, and the pilot episode of Stargirl.

To say the least, I was not impressed with any of it.

If a popular main actor leaves a show it may well kill it. Batwoman has been on only one season and its dress up. If they pick a good replacement, it may not matter.

I watch a UK show called Death in Paradise. Over the course of 9 seasons they have switched nearly the entire cast. They are on their third lead actor. Characters are not replaced, new ones just come on to do the same thing. Viewers, like me, don't seem to care.

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
All I've watched of the DC universe is the first season of The Flash (I bought the DVD set), the first four episodes of the 1st season of Supergirl, and the pilot episode of Stargirl.

To say the least, I was not impressed with any of it.

Legends of Tomorrow gets really good after season 1. Season 1 has to establish so much that it was good but clunky.

Clunky is a good word to describe my reaction to Supergirl, a show I was really looking forward to. I can't remember specific details after the years, but things like her being barely smudged after being engulfed in jet engine flames instead of every stitch of clothing burned off her body and things like that just had me shaking my head and laughing.

It's sort of like, why do ghosts not just sink right through floors instead of standing on them if they pass through everything else? Are the soles of their ectoplasmic feet the only things solid? Are they ticklish? Sometimes details like this don't bother me, but when they pile up one on another, they do. The same things happened with The Flash, but again, the details escape me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cardaddict:
It's sort of like, why do ghosts not just sink right through floors instead of standing on them if they pass through everything else? Are the soles of their ectoplasmic feet the only things solid?/QUOTE]

Because they can turn it off and on, obviously. How else can they slam doors and play pianos?

In the mid-1970s, didn't they have that "Shazam!" Saturday morning TV show, where they replaced the guy who played Captain Marvel, the lead, half way into it ?

And on the "Superboy" syndicated show, which ran 4 years, 1988-1992, they replaced John Haymes Newton (Superboy) after the first year with Gerard Christopher.

And on "The Adventures of Superman" in the 1950s, there were 2 Lois Lanes

And on "Lois and Clark" in the 1990s, 2 Jimmy Olsen's !

I know what you're saying. I was unimpressed with the writing of the first episode of "Supergirl." It was like I was watching 1970's Saturday morning TV and not in a good way. However, "The Flash" seemed like a good show after two episodes even with the disadvantage of seeing two non-consecutive ones.

I've seen one episode of "Batwoman" but it didn't have much action. Maybe I didn't see one of the better ones but Rose seemed to fit the role well and people talk about her positively. I think her departure will definitely hurt the show's chances of surviving to a third season.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by cardaddict:
All I've watched of the DC universe is the first season of The Flash (I bought the DVD set), the first four episodes of the 1st season of Supergirl, and the pilot episode of Stargirl.

To say the least, I was not impressed with any of it.

Lots of shows have changed actors mid-stream. Most often because the actor either decided there were greener pastures or because the actor did something to get fired.

Sometimes a replacement was brought on, like Becky in Rosanne or Darrin in Bewitched. Often times the character is just written out and another character, filling the same function, is added. That's really the better way to do it. How many actors have sailed in and out of all those NCIS, Criminal Minds, Grey's Anatomy type shows and they just kept going?

It's only when a show is so dependent on that one name actor for its success, that it will fail if he/she leaves. Two and a Half was getting bad, but got worse when Charlie Sheen was kicked off. X-Files never recovered from Duchovny's hold out and vanishing act in the last 2 regular seasons. But those were shows that had been on for awhile. I don't think anyone was so invested in Ruby Rose in her one season that she is irreplaceable, unless they make a really bad choice.

They replaced one of the actresses in Twin Peaks for the movie FIRE WALK WITH ME, I think because she didn't want to do the nude scene. I'm too lazy to look up the names. I was a bit tuned off by that then, and still am, because the replacement did not have the charisma of the original girl.

Couldn't get into Batwoman so no big loss for me. Even in the Crisis crossover she was the low point. Don't watch Supergirl either and I will say that Jon Cryer does a great job as Lex Luthor.

They need to try a couple more new shows for the Arrowverse. I was getting tired of Black Lightning but last half of this last season was really good. I will give Stargirl a few episodes to see if it grabs me.

Batwoman would be a good show if it was about Batwoman. Instead, it's turned into the Alice show. I get that the female Batman needs a female Joker, but enough is enough.

I think Ruby Rose pulled a "Genevieve Bujold". When they were casting Star Trek: Voyager, Genevieve Bujold was cast as Captain Janeway. She even filmed an episode or two. Then she found out what was involved in actually filming a television show. She quit (thankfully). I think Ruby Rose liked the idea of being the star of her own television show but didn't realize what was actually involved.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kennywood,

It's funny. I was thinking about Darrin in "Bewitched" while reading through this thread. The joke in the 70's was that nobody noticed the switch. It was a little mean and untrue as fans did notice but maybe not the casual viewer.

I remember Trapper, Henry and Frank leaving "MASH" but B.J., Potter, and Charles were well-rounded characters so the show kept going. Good writing allows for characters to come and go. "Law & Order" was another show that lost and gained good characters across its run. Again, good writing made the cast changes almost seamless.

Right, when a show centers on one complex and popular character, it's tough to replace the heart of the show. I immediately think of the American version of "The Office" when Steve Carell left near the end of a season. The show lost direction after that and really should have ended there. That last episode a couple of seasons later was good, though.

Jess

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Lots of shows have changed actors mid-stream. Most often because the actor either decided there were greener pastures or because the actor did something to get fired.

Sometimes a replacement was brought on, like Becky in Rosanne or Darrin in Bewitched. Often times the character is just written out and another character, filling the same function, is added. That's really the better way to do it. How many actors have sailed in and out of all those NCIS, Criminal Minds, Grey's Anatomy type shows and they just kept going?

It's only when a show is so dependent on that one name actor for its success, that it will fail if he/she leaves. Two and a Half was getting bad, but got worse when Charlie Sheen was kicked off. X-Files never recovered from Duchovny's hold out and vanishing act in the last 2 regular seasons. But those were shows that had been on for awhile. I don't think anyone was so invested in Ruby Rose in her one season that she is irreplaceable, unless they make a really bad choice.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

I watch a UK show called Death in Paradise. Over the course of 9 seasons they have switched nearly the entire cast. They are on their third lead actor. Characters are not replaced, new ones just come on to do the same thing. Viewers, like me, don't seem to care.

These are deliberately replaced though, The DI is always on secondment from UK and returns home (except the first one, who was killed), the police force personnel leave for various reasons (promotion etc) and it is part of the story with different names and characters. Batwoman changing is slightly different (unless they make the storyline fit a change) as it's the same role with a different actor. I get your point but it is Different.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: hammer,

quote:

Originally posted by hammer:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

I watch a UK show called Death in Paradise. Over the course of 9 seasons they have switched nearly the entire cast. They are on their third lead actor. Characters are not replaced, new ones just come on to do the same thing. Viewers, like me, don't seem to care.

These are deliberately replaced though, The DI is always on secondment from UK and returns home (except the first one, who was killed), the police force personnel leave for various reasons (promotion etc) and it is part of the story with different names and characters. Batwoman changing is slightly different (unless they make the storyline fit a change) as it's the same role with a different actor. I get your point but it is Different.

I agree that a show called Batwoman is going to rely more on that character and that actor than an ensemble cast show like Death in Paradise, if that's what you mean.

I don't think that the cast changes in Death in Paradise are a deliberate part of the plot. More like a pleasant way for the producers to handle actors who keep leaving for their own reasons. Ben Miller, Kris Marshall, Josephine Jobert and Danny John-Jules all quit on their own. Only Miller's character was killed off, as I think he's departure was not taken well by the studio, but he had a movie to do. That the show continues on is because it has a nice location, pleasant characters, capable actors, a weekly who-done-it and no heavy thinking.

A similar if darker show that I watched and you probably know called New Tricks did not work out so well as the original cast dropped off. Every replacement character/actor that came on for the previous characters seemed inferior to the last one. Once Amanda Redman and Dennis Waterman quit they should have wrapped it up then and there. New Tricks made 12 seasons, but by the finale there was nothing left and they couldn't even give it a proper ending.

So even ensemble cast can be important when viewers like certain actors and are not satisfied with the replacements. However many times the opposite is true and the replacement stands a chance at being better. I checked out Batwoman one time and didn't make it to the end of the episode, so I'm probably not going to be a good judge on this one.

Surprised there have been so many replies with no mention of the most successful main character replacement ever: Doctor Who

How about "NYPD Blue" ? Sipowicz (Dennis Franz) had 4 different partners over the course of 12 years, played by David Caruso, Jimmy Smits, Rick Schroeder, and Mark Paul Gosselaar.

Or "Law and Order" ? Over 20 years, 1990 to 2010, they must have had at least 25 different lead actors come and go, practically every 2-3 years or so.

Has Law and Order really been finished since 2010? Where has the time gone?