Spoilers Supergirl - Season 2

In the current season of Lopez, a former gangbanger (a gentle giant on the simple side) who is George's Butler, has gone back to school to get his G.E.D. where upon, half way through reading Huckleberry Finn, asks the room "Is it alright if I just call him Jim?"

My first encounter with Book burning was an episode of Family Ties where conservatives were trying to get Huckleberry Finn out of the School curriculum (and library), because by god it was 1983, and that sort of language is completely unacceptable for children!

 

"Supergirl" won't feel dated in a few years because it used the term "resist" just like "Star Trek Voyager's" crack about the EMH's performance as President of Earth being "unimpeachable" in the "Bride of Chaotica" ep isn't dated now. The viewer will simply not look beyond the surface meaning, which is how it should be since the surface meaning is more than enough to tell the tale.

Unlike this year, the board I followed in 1999 HOWLED when Bob Picardo uttered that infamous line and based on the political remarks made back then, I am pretty sure the majority of posters there were democrats.

 

Wait a second.

In the book, he is only named 'Jim.' The other-word-which-would-get-me-a-warning is only used in an objectifying way. For eg. 'You n-' and 'that n-.'

So unless you're reading the book word-by-word aloûd, why would you ever need to call him anything but his name? Have I missed something?

And how did I get on to talking about Huck Finn?

 

So, you're more of a Tom Sawyer person?

 

If I ever was, I wouldn't be by the end of Huck Finn.

 

The characters from Glee.

Puck

Rachel Berry.

Finn Hudson.

 

That line is still funny now. Supergirl should age well.

 

I had no clue that "resist" was a code word. I've seen a few Marches this year but nothing that could be described as actually resistance, unless people sharing posts on FB is now considered political resistance in the U.S.?

 

Just google it and you will catch a clue.

4 out of the first 5 entries after the definition relate to it and if you google "resist whitehouse" and hit the image function you will see one of the most famous albeit silent demonstrations against the current occupant that has occured this year.

 

I have to convince my mother to join Twitter.

I think my winning argument is "It's all Donald Trump does. Are you dumber than Donald Trump?"

Have you noticed the Double agent?

I'm just not exactly sure if she is an Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. embedded in the DEO, or a DEO Agent embedded in S.H.I.E.L.D.. I expected a heated resolution forthcoming from youtube, or E!.

 

I just did and nothing out of the ordinary.--then I turned on my VPN--I remember something about that banner.

 

Interesting, google has already changed from 15 min ago, or will a tablet and a laptop get different results?

https://www.google.com/search?site=...0...1.1.64.hp..3.3.841.0..0i131k1.iweH7j1eSKo

...but here are some highlights from this search.

1st an ad calling on you to "resist Trump" before the definition leads you to...

http://greenlining.org/blog/2017/resistreport-vol-11/

The 3rd and 5th links after the definition are more demonstrative of my thesis.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/resist-anti-trump-protest.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/resist-anti-trump-protest.html

And a google page of "resist whitehouse" garners this.

https://www.google.com/search?q=res...vZLUAhUNy2MKHUGhDqAQ_AUICigB&biw=1143&bih=536

 

I was talking not of the general theme of sexism, but the things very specific to the current political situation, like the Mitch McConnell quote used as the finale's title. The story told in the episode is fine, actually it is pretty general and dealing with the issues, but the title makes it about this particular time.

That's a fair point.

 

I don't see any reason why the writers can't make present-day references, if that's what they want to do. At this point in time, we the audience are, after all, in the present day.

When I hear such criticism of how something will look years from now, it sounds like tone policing.

In any case, the assumption that people will lack context for the phrase in the years to come is almost certainly flat-out wrong. There is now an entire page on Wikipedia dedicated to the phrase. That page lists the Supergirl episode as a cultural reference. Moreover, a notation indicating that cultural reference is precisely the sort of content that one could easily imagine being made in a dedicated wiki for the series. I'm not wrong, as it's already the first such notation in the Trivia section on the Arrowverse Wiki page for the episode.

So, on the contrary, McConnell's rebuke of Warren is immortalized, as is Supergirl's reference of it. The Internet never forgets.

The episode's title is visible in my DVR list, and in the pop-up episode capsule. Was it even seen on screen in the episode itself? If it was, I missed it. In fact, I'd like to thank you for drawing attention to the title, since it had slipped under my radar. As a Kentucky voter represented by Senator McConnell, I find his behavior to lack the character that I expect in my Senators. The knowledge that people approaching the series in the future will be reminded of McConnell's ineffectual ugliness has turned my appreciation of the series up a notch.

I've no doubt that the surface meaning that @JanewayRulz! mentioned will still play fine in the future, as well.

 

Really given the current state of things, I don't sexism against women is going away anytime soon. Supergirl is probably going to remain relevant for a long time.

 

Okay, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough when I said that @JanewayRulz! had a fair point. I'm conceding the argument.

But I also feel like you are misunderstanding my argument. I didn't say they shouldn't deal with sexism, I didn't say that sexism will be a dated theme in just a couple of years. I said that quotes like "Nevertheless, she persisted" will be dated in just a couple of years, because, as @JanewayRulz! had said herself, people won't recognize the referrence. That was all I was saying, and by now I've conceded that it isn't actually important whether future audiences recognize the referrence.

 

I concur. Sexism in the US is the reality going forward, for the foreseeable future, just as it's been the reality for the entire history of the US, and beyond. Progress has been made, clearly, but government institutions still not only tilt in favor of sexism but also blatantly exhibit it, by the stated intentions and policies of our elected officials; sexual discrimination remains entrenched in the workplace for at least the next few decades, as already discussed.

I spent a whole paragraph of my post addressing that particular point and why it was almost certainly incorrect that people won't get the reference, at least in the case of that quote in particular, so I think I got at least that part of what you were talking about.

 

People could Google it if they didn't get it.

 

I disagree, as TV history is splattered with titles or episode themes that were once relevant, but have since been placed in the irrelevant or "not so much" category, which date them forever. Nature of time. For example, in 1960s TV, there were episodes of various series that were relevant in the period in which they were created, such as The Twilight Zone, Naked City or Route 66, where in less than a decade, the political or social commentary was not a reflection of the times. 1970s TV--particularly that of Norman Lear--suffered from that. So, SG's politicized stories and/or titles will feel dated in the future, as it is simply the nature of time.

A related takeaway, is unless the series was exceptionally well produced (like Star Trek or The Twilight Zone), series dealing with social and/or political views, and not heavy handed / beat-you-over-the-head to appear relevant (like many 1970s sitcoms), future cultures (even if some are a part of the current generation / analysts do not look to fondly on those productions.