So how is Batwoman?

[JadedDM]

I mean, the precise reverse is equally as likely to be true. "It's easier for you to believe that everyone who gives this show a bad review is an incel troll than it is to believe they didn't actually like it".

Nobody knows, so why make sweeping assertions about other peoples' character based on baseless conjecture?

It is, in fact, very easy for me to believe someone could not like this show for legitimate reasons. It's usually pretty easy to tell when a criticism is legitimate and when it's in bad faith. And if you participate in these kinds of threads long enough, you start to notice certain users in particular always use bad faith arguments, conspiracy theories and outright deceptions. You come to expect them, even.

For instance, here's a thread about the upcoming Star Trek Picard. Note the users who insist that Discovery takes place in a different timeline than the other TV shows and act like that's common knowledge, despite the fact that not only is there no evidence of that, but in fact, the studios have said the opposite. Also note the conspiracy theory that Discovery is doing terribly and losing CBS tons of money, which is of course why they are making all these spin-off shows. Because that's what you do when your show is failing badly, you make more of them.

I remember when Ghostbusters came out, there were basically two kinds of criticisms of it here on this forum. See if you can tell the difference between them:

"I wanted to like it, but it just wasn't working for me. I giggled a few times, but most of the jokes didn't land. There were some pacing issues especially in the first half, but I thought the ending was alright."

Versus

"It was literally a crime against all cinema and human decency. It was the worst movie ever made, or so I assume, because I haven't actually seen it, I just watched a six hour youtube video of someone who also didn't see it, but made some really good points I thought. Also, the actors said anyone who dislikes this movie is sexist. You want evidence of this? Just watch that six hour youtube video I mentioned. The evidence is totally in there somewhere in the middle."

[Rynjin]

For instance, here's a thread about the upcoming Star Trek Picard. Note the users who insist that Discovery takes place in a different timeline than the other TV shows and act like that's common knowledge, despite the fact that not only is there no evidence of that, but in fact, the studios have said the opposite.

Doesn't it? I thought there were three Star trek timelines now; the Original one, the Kelvin one (that the Abrams movies take place in), and the new one (which completely replaced the Original one), which is about 90% identical to the Original one but borked a bit due to time travel shenanigans that happened in the Abrams movies? Since the stuff that happened in the first Kelvin movie did explicitly affect the main timeline IIRC; none of that was undone.

It would explain a lot of the inconsistent elements in Discovery, anyway, which even if it's not true explains why so many people think that, so it's not really hard to see why people would act like it's common sense if it's one of those spontaneously recurring fanon things (like "Beam me up Scotty" becoming an iconic phrase...despite never being spoken in the original series even once).

[JadedDM]

No, the showrunner of the first season has gone on the record saying that Discovery takes place in the prime timeline. There is no third timeline, just the prime and the Kelvin.

Fuller put to rest the speculation about which universe the show was set in, saying “It is in the prime timeline.”

[Rynjin]

No, the showrunner of the first season has gone on the record saying that Discovery takes place in the prime timeline. There is no third timeline, just the prime and the Kelvin.

That...doesn't actually help me, because I'm not entirely sure where the term "Prime timeline" is actually defined, and doesn't actually preclude what I said before (there would still only be two CURRENTLY existing timelines after the first Abrams Trek movie; one would have been deleted to make way for the new one).

Though I guess maybe it doesn't matter in that case?

[JadedDM]

Prime timeline refers to basically everything that isn't from the Abrams movies. The original series, the Next Generation, Deep Space 9, Voyager, Enterprise and Discovery. The Kelvin timeline consists only of the three Abrams films and so far, nothing else.

The whole reason they created a second timeline (Kelvin) was to appease fans of the prime timeline, who they worried would see the Kelvin timeline as 'erasing' the prime timeline to replace it. They wanted to make sure that both timelines existed, as a result.

[Rynjin]

Okay.

Still, I fully understand where people would be confused on that point.

[JadedDM]

Anyway...Batwoman, right? Which universe does this one take place in? Is it Supergirl's or one of the others? I can never keep track with them all.

[random11]

Anyway...Batwoman, right? Which universe does this one take place in? Is it Supergirl's or one of the others? I can never keep track with them all.

If I remember correctly, Batwoman appeared in either Arrow or Flash in an episode at least one or two seasons ago.
So assuming it's the same character, I'm betting on the "regular" universe.

Doesn't really matter though since characters rarely interact with each other, and that's fine.
Each character has his own city, and considering it's Gotham, she will have a full time job.

[The New Bruceski]

If I remember correctly, Batwoman appeared in either Arrow or Flash in an episode at least one or two seasons ago.
So assuming it's the same character, I'm betting on the "regular" universe.

Doesn't really matter though since characters rarely interact with each other, and that's fine.
Each character has his own city, and considering it's Gotham, she will have a full time job.

Elseworlds, Supergirl came to Earth-1, and then they all went to Gotham-1. She's on the same Earth as Barry and Oliver.

[Androgeus]

It would explain a lot of the inconsistent elements in Discovery,

Inconsistencies with other works has very little to do with the canonicty of a work. The most pessimistic reading of canon is that it’s just a marketing tool to encourage people to buy supplemental products that will be disregarded when profitable.

[Starbuck_II]

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy...it's more like an angry mob. They convene mostly on 4chan and Reddit, where they come up with these ridiculous 'ops' and also make up their own conspiracy theories. Remember when they were insisting that Disney was buying up all the tickets to Captain Marvel to make it look like it was more popular than it actually was? It was easier for them to believe that Disney likes to hemorrhage money than that the movie was actually popular. They also were the ones who kept insisting that Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson were going to be fired because The Last Jedi did so poorly (it didn't, and they weren't), swore up and down that the cast and director of the recent Ghostbusters outright said anyone who disliked their movie was sexist (they didn't), actually got James Gunn fired from Marvel (although he came back), and a bunch of other nonsense, as well. It's like they think if they repeat lies enough times, they will magically become true.

Well, it was suspicious...
https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/...s-controversy/

Now, believe it or not, something like buying tickets to make something seem better than it actually is is actually a common business strategy. You work to hype your product up and convince people it's popular, so they'll buy it. It's called padding the numbers, and while it's unethical, it works.


And remember, Disney gets money from ticket sales so they were close to breaking even when doing this.

And they may have paid bots to hype up reviews: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images...4ce2c6f45e.jpg

[JadedDM]

{Scrubbed}

[Androgeus]

And they may have paid bots to hype up reviews: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images...4ce2c6f45e.jpg

If I was feeling extra conspiratorial, I’d say those are just anti-c.marvel people trying to create a controversy. I mean surely Disney can afford better fake reviews than just a bunch of copy and pastes.

[Rynjin]

If I was feeling extra conspiratorial, I’d say those are just anti-c.marvel people trying to create a controversy. I mean surely Disney can afford better fake reviews than just a bunch of copy and pastes.

Companies that pay for reviews don't really tend to give a **** about the content or quality of the review, only that it's positive.

You can basically write whatever.

[random11]

Might as well throw my opinion on Captain Marvel here as well:
I think it was a good movie. Decent, solid, and if I compare it from far away, I would even say it's quality is at least in par with the first Iron Man.

The problem? It was like the 20th superhero movie I've seen since the first Iron Man, and despite the quality and fun, I also had the nagging feeling of "just another movie of this type".
It's not the movie's fault, but at the same time it is. After so many movies, you have to be unique, push forward BEYOND the quality of the first movies.
It is sad to say, but despite enjoying it very much, in 2 years I'm more likely to remember Ant Man than Captain Marvel.


Anyway, back to Batwoman.
I will say something good for a change, I liked the motivation for her actually being Batwoman.
Since the trailer and the "make the suit to fit a woman" thing that was generally disliked for legit reasons (yes, there were also trolls), I was afraid the red wig will be a result of ego, but instead it was a calculated move.
People think Batman returned, so they have hope.
On the counter action, old enemies are committing crimes to draw Batman out.
So she had to still inspire hope, while making a statement she is NOT the same person, therefore - Batwoman.

Got to give them credit for that.

As for the rest? Well..... Classic CW, I'll try to remain nice and not elaborate.

[Bartmanhomer]

Batwoman deserved an Emmy in my opinion.

[Lapak]

Anyway, back to Batwoman.
I will say something good for a change, I liked the motivation for her actually being Batwoman.
Since the trailer and the "make the suit to fit a woman" thing that was generally disliked for legit reasons (yes, there were also trolls), I was afraid the red wig will be a result of ego, but instead it was a calculated move.
...
As for the rest? Well..... Classic CW, I'll try to remain nice and not elaborate.

That last sentence sums it up for me; they seem to be shaping the standard Berlantiverse setup.

• Main character with cast of tech support and friends who know their secret by episode 2
• Someone part of their personal life who DOESN'T know, and won't for an annoyingly long time, but has a reason to interact with their alter ego
• Seasonal villain with an emotional investment, villains-of-the week to keep the main plot from being resolved too fast

If you like the CW superhero shows, it looks like it will be a fine example once the first-season rockiness shakes out, which it's suffering to a pretty typical degree for shows generally that are trying to figure out who their characters are. If you don't like other CW superhero shows, you won't like this one either.

But yes, the rationale for adjusting the outfit was both reasonable and they took the time to establish the background for it. And I was a little surprised that they are leaning hard into Batman as a tech hero, with a full-on supersuit and all.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Well, we already have Ollie as the Trained Hero. And Thea, and Spartan, and Arsenal, and White Canary, the original Black Canary, Wild Dog...

Batman being a Tech Hero differentiates him from the crowd. I think Curtis/Mister Terrific and Ray/Atom are the only others.

[KillianHawkeye]

Anyway...Batwoman, right? Which universe does this one take place in? Is it Supergirl's or one of the others? I can never keep track with them all.

If I remember correctly, Batwoman appeared in either Arrow or Flash in an episode at least one or two seasons ago.
So assuming it's the same character, I'm betting on the "regular" universe.

Doesn't really matter though since characters rarely interact with each other, and that's fine.
Each character has his own city, and considering it's Gotham, she will have a full time job.

Elseworlds, Supergirl came to Earth-1, and then they all went to Gotham-1. She's on the same Earth as Barry and Oliver.

The thing is, Elseworlds Batwoman (which was on Earth 1, yes) was an already fully formed Batwoman, while the new one is still going through her origin story. Finally got the Batwoman suit with the wig and red highlights in the third episode!

At this point, we don't really know if Batwoman from the show is the same Batwoman as the one from last year's crossover event. It could be that the Elseworlds version simply became Batwoman a year earlier than the non-altered version, or else the show's version doesn't take place on Earth 1.

Nothing that's happened so far in the show has referenced the multiverse or any of the CW's other shows yet, so there literally isn't any evidence to support a claim for which Earth it takes place on.

The only hint I guess is that Batwoman did call Oliver at the end of Elseworlds, concerned over the fate of the crazy doctor guy. And that was after reality had been restored. Maybe the timing of the show is a little out of synch, and we've sort of gone back to before that to see Batwoman's origin story?

I think I would kind of prefer it if Batwoman existed in Supergirl's universe, though. They would more easily be able to have duo team-ups that don't involve the other super hero groups, and that would be pretty awesome.

Crisis on Infinite Earths will certainly clear up which universe she's in, whatever the case.

[The New Bruceski]

You are thinking way to hard about this. TV time moves at whatever pace it has to. Sometimes it's a week a week, sometimes a day can take a month, sometimes you cameo in one show and then when your own series starts you jump back to the origin. Things sync up when they need to sync up. In episode 5x11 of Arrow, when Oliver asked Barry to run a note to Captain Singh, nobody asked if it was in the middle of them fighting Gypsy.

[Starbuck_II]

So, this show's first season might be a prequel?
I'd say at end of first season is when elsewhere calls Ollie, but hard to tell the CW universe time frame.

[KillianHawkeye]

So, this show's first season might be a prequel?
I'd say at end of first season is when elsewhere calls Ollie, but hard to tell the CW universe time frame.

No, not if Batwoman is going to be a part of Crisis in December (which she obviously will be). It's going to have to synch up with the rest of the Arrowverse between now and then if they want to say that it's the same version of Batwoman shown in Elseworlds. But she's got the suit and plenty of gadgets now, so it wouldn't be hard at all to let a little time skip somewhere.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Well, we finally got up to the nightclub. And I have to admit, having a cover identity in property management has more upsides the longer I think about it. You have a reason to always be out and about, odd hours kind of come with the territory and nobody will be too surprised if you have to suddenly reschedule to meet a contractor or go deal with a 'water main break'. And you can do some good without the mask.

I might have to use that in a game sometime.

[Lemmy]

Ah... There it is...

"He doesn't like BW, therefore he's sexist/troll/incel."
I honestly have no idea how anyone can sincerely defend this show based on its quality. I watched 3 episodes to give it a chance and it ranges from "cringy and mediocre" to "super cringy and awful".

"He believes STD/prime timeline isn't the same as original timeline, therefore sexist/ troll/incel."

This is stupid. First off: The prime timeline has very clear differences from the classic one (even the goddamn Enterprise is completely different!). And in fact are kept separate due to rights to merchandising.

But much more importantly: Even if the claim is wrong and the prime timeline is indeed the same as the classic timeline... All that means is that the person making the claim is mistaken. It is in no way an indication of "incel culture" or whatever other boogeyman is used to invalidate criticism of STD.

Good gods... As much as I hear accusations of "trolls/incels" review-bombing stuff, I much more often see precisely the opposite: Something starring a female character being fiercely defended no matter how bad it is, and having every criticism of it being labeled as sexism, which is both the laziest excuse and one of the stupidest conspiracy theories I've ever heard.

Seriously... If only the possible reason anyone can think of for someone criticizing Cap Marvel, STD or Batwoman is sexism, then they probably didn't pay attention to what they watched... Or are way too eager to swallow and regurgitate the cookie-cutter "white men bad" "incels review-bomb" BS.

Rey is a Mary Sue. Brie Larson gave a pretty wooden performance in CP, which is a mediocre movie. Batwoman is terrible. That's not sexism. That's acknowledging flaws of certain characters and/or franchises. I could (and often do) make the exact same criticisms about male characters and actors, but no one ever accuses me of being some sort of misandric feminazi troll or any other BS like that. Where were all these accusations of bigotry when I spoke ill of Cavill's acting in Man of Steel?

If one's first reaction to criticism of a movie/franchise/character/whatever the like is assuming it's some sort of conspiracy by intolerant fanatics, they should probably take a very long look at themselves before calling anyone any of those words, because they are probably being quite hypocritical without even realizing it.

[Bobb]

Yeah, as IR the first person in the trailer response thread who didn't couch their reservations for the "perfect when it fits a woman" line with something diplomatic or encouraging was labeled a mysoginist.

[lowfyr01]

No you can still not like a movie but this is just your opinion. Saying that this movie is bad because -enter something with SJW or Mary Sue or just made up stuff is there it gets dicey.

Not liking a movie and People making up stuff about Captain Marvel or Larson for example that is in no way true are two very different things. It has something in common with the magazines standing next to the checkout in the supermarket. Only difference is today everyone can post the made up stuff to sell his youtubechannel for example. the other actors hated her so much for example that Samuel L. Jackson made two for movies with her not in the MCU^^

The so called wooden acting could perhaps have something to do with her role. And that changed even during the movie.

If Rey is a Mary Sue than Anakin and Luke are even more so.

[Bobb]

What have people made up about Batwoman?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Ah... There it is...

"He doesn't like BW, therefore he's sexist/troll/incel."
I honestly have no idea how anyone can sincerely defend this show based on its quality. I watched 3 episodes to give it a chance and it ranges from "cringy and mediocre" to "super cringy and awful".

"He believes STD/prime timeline isn't the same as original timeline, therefore sexist/ troll/incel."

This is stupid. First off: The prime timeline has very clear differences from the classic one (even the goddamn Enterprise is completely different!). And in fact are kept separate due to rights to merchandising.

But much more importantly: Even if the claim is wrong and the prime timeline is indeed the same as the classic timeline... All that means is that the person making the claim is mistaken. It is in no way an indication of "incel culture" or whatever other boogeyman is used to invalidate criticism of STD.

Good gods... As much as I hear accusations of "trolls/incels" review-bombing stuff, I much more often see precisely the opposite: Something starring a female character being fiercely defended no matter how bad it is, and having every criticism of it being labeled as sexism, which is both the laziest excuse and one of the stupidest conspiracy theories I've ever heard.

Seriously... If only the possible reason anyone can think of for someone criticizing Cap Marvel, STD or Batwoman is sexism, then they probably didn't pay attention to what they watched... Or are way too eager to swallow and regurgitate the cookie-cutter "white men bad" "incels review-bomb" BS.

Rey is a Mary Sue. Brie Larson gave a pretty wooden performance in CP, which is a mediocre movie. Batwoman is terrible. That's not sexism. That's acknowledging flaws of certain characters and/or franchises. I could (and often do) make the exact same criticisms about male characters and actors, but no one ever accuses me of being some sort of misandric feminazi troll or any other BS like that. Where were all these accusations of bigotry when I spoke ill of Cavill's acting in Man of Steel?

If one's first reaction to criticism of a movie/franchise/character/whatever the like is assuming it's some sort of conspiracy by intolerant fanatics, they should probably take a very long look at themselves before calling anyone any of those words, because they are probably being quite hypocritical without even realizing it.

Huh, I found Brie Larson to be quite the scene stealer in EndGame and of course her own movie. If I have a criticism its with her character being ridiculously powerful.

[The New Bruceski]

And with the mention of an Arkham breakout in this episode, the show has officially caught up with Elseworlds.

[Kitten Champion]

Huh, I found Brie Larson to be quite the scene stealer in EndGame and of course her own movie. If I have a criticism its with her character being ridiculously powerful.

This is mostly a narrative set up by those who jumped on the early Captain Marvel trailer and never actually watched the movie, and it just got rolled with because this is the Internet and that's how it do.

Sure, Captain Marvel has issues as a movie, but Brie Larson being wooden is not really one of them. However, because it's all "opinion" and backed up by dozens of comments you might've read on those big Yellow Font Youtube channels, it doesn't really matter.