It actually is when done as it was last night. When you liken the views of half the country as supporting an alien taking over the world by force, and throw in both liberal and conservative catchphrases, showing the conservative view in such a negative light, and wrong, it's very disrespectful.
Spoilers Supergirl - Season 2
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
It actually is when done as it was last night. When you liken the views of half the country as supporting an alien taking over the world by force, and throw in both liberal and conservative catchphrases, showing the conservative view in such a negative light, and wrong, it's very disrespectful.
Artists/writers can create the show they want to create.
The show doesn't belong to the audience or some part of the audience. If writers want to criticize Trump, they should do that. Pop culture can comment on the real world.
If the audience is unhappy, they'll stop watching.
Conservatives can be so touchy, though.
No, it's not.
What Supergirl did last night - and has been doing for the entirety of its existence thus far, I might add - is, fundamentally, no different than what late night talk show hosts and political commentators of a particular political persuasion do on a regular basis. Calling out a particular political viewpoint and painting it in a light that is influenced by an opposing political viewpoint isn't being disrespectful; it's called being expressive of a dissenting opinion/viewpoint, and, so, again, it comes back to the meme I posted.
You're not going to be taken seriously if you keep trying to frame any viewpoint that disagrees with the one you happen to hold, regardless of how said viewpoint happens to be expressed, as being disrespectful.
Honestly, I think it is really silly to be bothered by Supergirl taking some shots at Trump. I mean, we got talk radio that does conservative talk shows, which is very anti-liberal, for 6-9 hours every day, we got conservative websites like The Blaze that put out anti-liberal content 24/7, we got Fox News that is anti-liberal 24/7. If a conservative actor like Clint Eastwood makes an anti-Obama speech, or if the show "24" takes a shot at liberals, that is cool but if a liberal actor makes an anti-Trump statement at the Oscars or if a TV show like Supergirl uses the expression "make america great again" in a satirical way, it's the worse thing ever! Give me a break!
There's nothing essentially wrong with expressing a political view, of course.The problem comes in that modern writers rarely understand the values of fairness and accuracy. it's much easier (and more fun) to make caricatures of your opponents than to intelligently interact with them, and the former approach is the one regularly taken by most of the popular media. Most shows hit you over the head with an idea, usually while ridiculing those who hold a different idea. There are some who think that TV exists primarily not to entertain but to further their personal agendas; those who disagree with that agenda are stupid and evil and must be stopped at all costs. As much as I enjoy TV and movies, I can't think of a time when a TV show made me change a deeply held view about anything important. That kind of reflection only happens in the world of real and meaningful relationships. Popular media is just not equipped to do that. It would require that they present all the options with sufficient wisdom and balance, something they don't seem interested in doing.
As for Supergirl, I couldn't care less about the politics of the show. I just wish the writing as a whole was smarter and less predictable.
As for Supergirl, I couldn't care less about the politics of the show. I just wish the writing as a whole was smarter and less predictable.
I'm not talking about left vs. right. Your premise was that superheroes and politics are incompatible; I was citing the historical fact that superhero fiction has always been intensely political. I have included examples of right-leaning comics as well as left-leaning ones. I try to look at both sides of the issue; you're the one who insists on reducing political discourse to "us vs. them."
Which is why you didn't get my point about "Hizzoner the Penguin" etc. I wasn't saying it took a side; I was saying that it was about politics. One does not have play an us-vs.-them game in order to comment on the process and phenomenon of politics. The story was satirizing the tendency of political candidates to place superficial theater and populist demagoguery above substantive issues and competence, and that is absolutely, deeply relevant to the way the 2016 presidential campaign played out. It's not about right vs. left, it's about sincere public service over self-serving greed and deception, and that is a far more important political discussion to have than whether one is liberal or conservative.
"Let?" You seem to be implying that people who express a political view you don't agree with should be prohibited from writing fiction. That is a hideous thing to suggest.
Artists/writers can create the show they want to create.
The show doesn't belong to the audience or some part of the audience. If writers want to criticize Trump, they should do that. Pop culture can comment on the real world.
If the audience is unhappy, they'll stop watching.
Conservatives can be so touchy, though.
For a group of people that pats themselves on the back for empathy and tolerance, it seems a bit odd that the answer to an easy fix is "don't watch."
You're right--the show doesn't belong to the audience, but the writers still need the audience to watch to make money, so telling half the country that their viewership is unwelcome doesn't seem to be a good strategy. This is a superhero show, not a commercial for the democrats.
Arguably true, though when you watch a political commentator, you expect political commentary, no matter which side of the aisle you are on. And I would argue the same with late night talk shows, where political commentary has always been part of the game. While the one sided nature is still just as bad, it's not inappropriate, where on a superhero show, I would think people are tuning in to see superheroes battle villains, not listen to a commercial for the democrats.
When the expression of a viewpoint is done like it was last night, it is disrespectful to the other side. Again, they likened aliens going around murdering people to Trump, and actually pushed the democrat party by name, and even used a real world democrat to drive that point home.
In fairness, I agree that Supergirl isn't the only show guilty of doing this--other shows do as well, but the bastardization of conservative views and the shameless promotion of a particular party should not happen on a superhero show. It's the wrong genre.
Now as for conservatives in Hollywood, they are so few and far between it's virtually nonexistent. You don't see network shows portray conservative values positively---pretty much ever.
A post mentioned 24. David Palmer was a Democrat. The bad presidents on that show were Republicans.
I agree with a lot of the above. Tolerance requires the ability to see the other side, and these writers deliberately do not do that. That wasn't satire last night--that was a bastardization of the world and disrespectful to anyone who is conservative based on a lack of understanding of what conservatives actually feel. Supergirl is a superhero show. They should entertain and leave the politics to a show where it is more organic.
@Kirk Prime Creators of fiction have as much right to cover political topics and express/espouse particular political points of view/opinions as political commentators and late-night talk shows do, and your repeated and blatant suggestions to the contrary, which Christopher so briefly addressed above as well, is one of the many things that is preventing you from actually being taken seriously.
I also didn't tell you not to watch the show. Why the drama?
The show is criticizing one of the least-popular presidents in the history of the US presidency. I think the show will be fine. In addition to that I'm perfectly fine with writers using their shows to comment on worrying developments that threaten the liberal-democratic order or civil political discourse.
I didn't like the right-wing torture advertisements in 24, yet that show also found its audience. I'm okay with not having watched much of it.
I think the counter argument is that we liberals do complain about Talk Radio and FoxNews. If we have a legit reason to complain about that then shouldn't conservatives have a legit argument to complain about liberal stuff in tv shows and movie's? I think one thing in common with a decent human being, whether they are democrat or republican is that they don't want their views to be misrepresented. At the very least these things should try to be fair to both sides.
For me I don't mind it if a show wants to be biased just as long as it's well done. Not everything has to appeal to everyone. The word "target audience" exists for a reason and if someone is open enough to actually be intrested in other perspectives then they can also enjoy something not aimed at them.
Jason
Which explains why so many shows have a liberal slant: most shows are run by liberals because they are a large majority in Hollywood. But I think this fact also shows why it is wrong for conservatives to get mad at liberals for expressing their views through a TV show. It's basically telling the majority (in Hollywood) "Shut up! You don't get free speech! Just entertain us and don't say anything that we don't agree with!". And considering how dominant conservatives are in other media like talk radio, I don't blame liberals in Hollywood for wanting to use their platform to express their views. For me, it is a free speech issue. Both sides have the right to free speech, especially political speech.
Kirk Prime doesn't really have "legitimate reasons" to complain about Supergirl's political leanings, though, because he/she keeps trying to frame said objections through the lens of the series not having a right to express political viewpoints because the way in which it chose to do so is somehow 'disrespectful' of anyone who holds a viewpoint that is contrary to the one being expressed by the series and its writers.
He/she also invalidated the legitimacy of his/her argument, as was pointed out by Christopher, by pretty heavily and blatantly suggesting that comics have declined in quality as a result of writers coming in and imposing a particular point of view, be it social or political, on the properties for which they're writing simply because said point of view is at odds with what he/she (Kirk Prime) thinks.
Complaining is fine. That's exercising free speech, contributing to the marketplace of ideas. But saying that the creators of those stories shouldn't even be permitted to express those points of view is inexcusable. It's also self-defeating. If we really have faith in the strength of our ideas, we shouldn't be threatened by the existence of alternative ideas.
That's kind of a myth. Hollywood studios are run by wealthy executives, who tend to be conservative. But they're running businesses, so they place profit over ideological purity and will put out whatever audiences want to see. That's why right-wing mogul Rupert Murdoch allows the left-leaning FOX network to exist alongside the right-wing propaganda engine Fox "News." Appealing to both sides of the political spectrum makes him more money, and that's ultimately his highest concern.
Television is not a free effort. It costs huge amounts of money. So what gets on the air isn't just about what the network execs want to put out; it's about what makes a profit. Shows that don't make a profit can't stay on the air. So what we see on television is shaped more by the tastes of the audience than the tastes of the execs. If there are a lot of shows with a progressive slant, that's because a lot of viewers respond to it.
And of course Superman and Supergirl are both immigrants themselves -- more than that, they're refugees. That's fundamental to the whole franchise.
...and I notice how some SG viewers--many claiming to be tolerant--have no problem with the sickening wave of misandry shoved into this series. Hatred / disrespect of males will not achieve equality for females. It does not work that way. The showrunners need to do more than walk by a history class. This is one of the many reasons this series will never be considered one of the greater superhero adaptations that (in one way or another) stand the test of time. The showrunners are so emotionally underdeveloped coupled with their fringe politics ending with male=wrong / conservative=evil, that its presence in the series is its one takeaway, instead of....the plot.
Yes, TNG was preachy, with its "we know better than you" approach. Its no secret why a series that ran longer than TOS, jumped to movies with no decade gap, and is more of a "recent" product is not embraced as a classic like TOS.
Some use "fantasy makes social commentary" as a false catch-all for the worst fringe beliefs, as if it is all on the same level of importance, or reflecting real concerns at all. That would be a lie attempting to justify their own wish to destroy people unlike themselves. Not so tolerant after all.
In TNG's case, the "we know better than you" platform made ST come off like a finger wagging mix of a single-minded California politician and a PBS talk show. That's not what made ST popular or relevant--it was never aggressively one-sided to the point of damning entire parts of the population.
It was the kind of writing one would expect from a child wanting to make a character seem "bold" or "badass" while forgetting that readers live in a reality where that will never happen.
It was offensive in the extreme. The worst misandrist scripting I've seen in a generation of TV, if not longer. Imagine the reaction if a male character made the equivalent comment about women. Rest assured, the showrunners would need to go on the apology tour of every late night show, vowing to work to rid themselves of alleged faults.
Cray and ridiculous. Cat is a talking head. That's all. No alien with power would respect her. I would not expect Rhea to pay any attention to a self absorbed human any more that I'd expect J. Jonah Jameson to talk down Galactus. Once again, it was a scene mirroring the asinine "hope" speech from SG season 1, along with trying to humanize her after a season of being vile.
Agreed. She's fine in the role, and has the appropriate amount of disrespect for Supergirl, while still trying to play "mother/mentor" to Lena in the way Palpatine played "kindly old mentor" to Anakin Skywalker.
.
She was never a strong actress. She works best when hard-fit into a role with no room for her to do it her way, such as the 1st season of Wonder Woman.
It was trying to show just how super-duper-wonderrrrrful Supergirl is because she holds no grudge against Mon-El's mommy.
What values should be shown positively? Your attempts to curtail the rights of minorities? The attempts to build a wall? Taking away health insurance from poor people? Giving even more tax breaks to the rich?
Not a lot there to put a positive spin on.
Frank Underwood from House of Cards is a Democrat.
I agree that his argument is flawed, proably because he isn't aware of his own bias, but I think the general feeling of not having his side fairly represented isn't the most inacurate feeling to have if your a conservative. If I was conservative I might feel like my views are being personally attacked if my side was always being presented as having the wrong opinion or being written as the villian. Sometimes emotion beats out logic. I think that was something that got a lot of people to support Trump. Even if they didn't agree with him just having someone pretend to care was enough.
Jason
At no point in the history of 24 did they ever have anything positive to say about Republicans. Again, David Palmer was a democrat. All the "good" presidents were democrats. But I will add that 24 is a show about fighting terrorism both foreign and domestic, so these kinds of issues are expected.
This isn't civil political discourse. There is nothing civil about it, and until there is a balance shown, no minds could possibly be changed. Trump is not the president on Supergirl's Earth. Lynda Carter is. So again, not really appropriate on a superhero show to complain about Trump.
I'm guessing you're having a little trouble seeing this from the point of view of a conservative audience member. Try for a second please. Hollywood is a place that is so politically intolerant that conservatives often get blackballed with very few exceptions. I can't think of one network show that has a conservative bias. Not one. But almost all shows have a liberal bias. What's worse, is that they constantly demonize conservatives and their viewpoints. Conservative characters are often portrayed as caricatures, mocked, and are almost always evil. These aren't actual conservatives, but just the writers' fantasy of what conservatives are, from people with no interest in the other side.
Now imagine TV shows doing this all across the spectrum. It gets very old. And then you see it on an 8pm superhero show--shilling for the democrats by name.
Or maybe imagine FoxNews putting on this show, and taking all the opposite stances while portraying liberals in the same fashion. You really think that "don't watch" is the right answer? Again it comes down to the question of whether you think conservatives shouldn't be able to watch TV at all, since so many network shows take this attitude.
Last night's story was "Daxamites attack National City and Supergirl and the people of Earth fight back." Why are they doing promos for the democrats?
To contrast--I have NO issue with the "should aliens be here" storyline. It worked organically with the show, and even if the writers want to try to use that story in a slight slant toward today's issues, it's done in a way that is natural to the show.
Even if they take the left wing side. Obviously these writers are extreme liberals, but again--no issue with their immigration plot. Last night is where I felt they went too far.
I agree that it is wrong to misrepresent the other side. But I am not quite clear on how Supergirl misrepresented conservatives last night. You can see Cat's speech here:
It is clearly a dig at Trump, not conservatives. In fact, considering that the speech is called "resist" which is also the rallying cry for liberals opposing Trump's agenda, the writers basically used Cat's speech about resisting an alien invasion to also give a speech about resisting Trump, especially her line about "they come with empty promises etc...". So the show is equating Trump with Rhea, implying that like her, Trump is trying to impose his agenda on us by force. It is a dig on Trump, not conservatives. Cat's speech is simply expressing what many liberals believe which is that in their mind, Trump's agenda will damage or destroy this country, like the daxamite invasion. Now, I get that Trump supporters won't like this but the writers have the right to free speech to say this if they want.
And the above is the same bastardization of conservative values that these writers got wrong. I wish I could go into it more, but that would derail this thread into something off topic, and I respect the thread enough not to go there.
Needless to say, that's just not conservativeism--just what the left wants you to think it is.
Similar threads
