Ruby Rose is one mighty attractive lady. That she's portraying Kate Kane, aka Batwoman, in a solo lead should have me jumping for joy, but I've come to distrust CW's handling of DC's heroes, no matter how inspiring the casting.
The problem is the network's fickle focus on moral matters. "Arrow" pretty much kept the right vibe (or at least covered both sides of an issue when it could), but try as it may, its valiant design failed to influence the rest. "Supergirl", all on its own disrespectful accord, crushed any hope of that. I fear that "Batwoman" (premiering Oct 9) will deal the same "woke", good-is-bad/bad-is-good card. If that's the case, I could just as well watch the loathsome "Lego Batman Movie" and call it a day.
And yet, how can I be so hasty regarding CW's latest, crossover stunts? The actors and personas in store rival anything on the DC big screen. However, if CW's television counterparts are misconstrued, if the plots lack ethical conviction, what's the point?
My greater fear is what HBO might do to "Watchmen" (premiering Oct 20). How the hell can a superhero show (an impression-of "sequel" to Alan Moore/Dave Gibbon's classic, graphic novel and Zack Snyder's acclaimed movie) thrive on a source that Bill Maher has hijacked for the worse?
The complex concepts of "Watchmen" shouldn't be altered to fit a perceived demographic, let alone appease a pompous, comic-book hater. I can only imagine (and fear) how far the variables will be bent, and what a bloody shame that would be, considering the series' spectacular cast. Whether it be a sequel. prequel or something in-between, "Watchmen" must maintain a conscientious, omniscient vibe to succeed. Without it, it wouldn't be "Watchmen". On this basis, will adapter Damon Lidelhof champion the original conception or redefine it in the Rian Johnson vein?
I can only hope and pray for the best for either series, but when agenda-geared networks get involved, I tend to smell disaster. Please, oh please, for DC's sake, prove me wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment