I don't know what his current backstory is in the comics, but way back in the 70s and 80s when I was reading Batman comics regularly, he was an OSS operative in World War II and he fought with the French Resistance (even having a romance and love child with Mademoiselle Marie!).
So, here's the lowdown on DC's streaming service. It actually sounds pretty fucking awesome. Of course, there's the new shows you've heard of, Titans, Harley cartoon, Swamp Thing, Doom Patrol, etc. But it looks like it's going to have every animated and live-action DC show and movie they've ever made. AND you'll be able to read digital comics on it (DC of course). Now, it doesn't look like they'll have every single episode and comics issue when they start, but one can assume as they go along, they'll have it all. http://www.superherohype.com/news/418147-dc-universe-details-revealed
I'm waiting for someone to start actually packaging these streaming services, or we see some consolidation, it's getting stupid now. Can't be long until we see a blockchain powered one
I REALLY wondering how you can do Gotham and ignore both Bats and his entire Rouges Gallery, I get you can allude to Batman in an off camera sense but that's a lot of bad guys to ignore
Titans trailer. Ah, so Starfire and Beast Boy are colorized in post! I still think they'll have human holographic camouflage. Robin dropping f-bombs, eh? Guess they had to justify being on streaming somehow.
more impressed than not but...please tell me that coat is not going to be a fixture for Starfire (who strikes me as having been cast pretty harshly against physical type in the first place)
Some are bemoaning the violence as against character for a few of the Titans - Robin firing the gun, Dove physically attacking people when she's supposedly a pacifist - but this could be evidence of Trigon's influence... I didn't quite notice it at first but someone said it at TBBS and they were right - there's a very Burt Ward feel to the guy playing Robin during the "Dick Grayson" scenes.
Black Lightning, but not a series 2 preview, a season 1 recap. Meh. I mean, if you're a noob, and want to play catch up, or you watched, and have a bad memory, it's handy I guess.
https://deadline.com/2018/07/superg...ro-april-parker-jones-david-ajala-1202430870/ Interestingly - to me - "Dream Girl" in the Legion of Superheroes (who had three members participate heavily in Supergirl last season) is name Nura Nal. I wonder if this is supposed to be the same person? Brainy is back in the 21st century for a while (for reasons) - is he the only legionnaire or will they be coming and going? Unrelated, Manchester Black is also a good add. That whole "Agent Liberty" riff looks damn timely too
gotta say, i saw some bitching on Twitter along the lines of "yeah but she's not a REAL lesbian!" And? The women who played lesbians on Supergirl do not, AFAIK, identify as lesbians. Rose at least is Bi, if not more so I don't get it. I'm not sure what i think of her in this role but that seemed silly to me.
It's the current "you must be of X to play a character of X" idiocy, because people don't get that acting involves playing a part, not being the part. If you've got several actors going in for a role that identifies as a lesbian, I'd like to see "rug-munching experience" come a distant second to "acting ability." You've got a lesbian able to do the role, with the acting chops? Brilliant, that's perfect. But if not, why go for the lesser actor just to satisfy the outraged? It's not like whitewashing. If it's black character, I kind of get the need for a black actor there, no one wants to see an actor go all Kirk Lazarus or Al Jolson, but the more minority you go with a role, the less prospects there are for a suitable actor. More minority actors is a good thing, as it shows the industry is being more inclusive, but that isn't the same as transmitting acceptance to viewers. For that you need the viewer to empathise, and for that you need a good actor first and foremost.
oh not all of it is idiocy. As you alluded to, if you tell me that Chris Pine is gonna play John Lewis in a biopic I'm gonna have objections. The whole "it's called acting" canard only gets you so far. But the thing I was referring to is primarily, that Ruby Rose IS not a straight woman. ETA: To be clear, I agree you can't default to (to use this example) a poor lesbian actor rather than cast a straight actor....but that thesis assumes there are no good lesbian actors right for the part which seems a problematic assumption. Moreover, you don't discover great minority performers until they get cast somewhere. The whole point behind the debate over casting trans actors to play trans characters (a valid concern) was never the quality of the performance, but it was pointed out by many that if you are afraid to cast trans actors you'll never know if any of them are great actors.
Eh, I didn't state there were no good lesbian actors, I'm saying there needs to be some sanity over the medium. Movies, especially tentpole ones, aren't cheap, and whilst they're happy to juggle a loss, they're also fairly risk averse when it comes to perceived failure. They're going to weigh up box office bankability vs authenticity of the actor for the role, and that is entirely reasonable. How often are you inclined to gamble the weekly food budget on a new range of food items? You're not, because you're not stupid. TV shows too. I can't imagine Batwoman will be terribly cheap, so they want to maximise chances of success. They may get it right. They may get it wrong, but it's in their interests to get who they think is the best person who can play the part regardless of sexuality. Let's be clear here, you cannot reserve certain roles for actors who match non-obvious aspects of that role. If you do, that's not a nice door. I'd not like to see a universe where Ian McKellen was turned down for Magneto because Magneto is traditionally straight any more than I'd want to see straight actor barred from gay roles. That goes for anything that needn't be obvious on the surface of a character. Basically, if you've two boxes "acting ability" and "matches non-obvious minority of character", I'm saying the first box is the most important when casting. If a gay role goes to a shitty straight actor, whilst the great gay actor is shooed out, you've cause to get the placards out and I'll fully support you If a gay role goes to a great straight actor, whilst the not-as-good gay actor gets shooed out, keep the placards in the Outrage Shed, they're not needed.
