By no means perfect, but it had its moments, and the Superboy character was (in large part) faithfully handled. It was ccertainly better than Cannon's Superman IV disaster.
That much is true!
Spoilers Supergirl - Season 3
- Thread starter dahj
- Start date
- Status
By no means perfect, but it had its moments, and the Superboy character was (in large part) faithfully handled. It was ccertainly better than Cannon's Superman IV disaster.
That much is true!
Yeah. It was bad enough that they tried to weaken Superman by having him lose to Supergirl last season, but weak writing isn't going to change that this is still Superman. You have a storyline where Kryptonians are invading Earth, and now are tearing the planet apart, and he doesn't even get a mention?
You are talking about the greatest force for good in the universe, at a time when the very planet is in danger. Yes, they need to tell us where he is when there is clearly an event that warrants his attention.
Not in special episodes, and if written correctly. They have J'onn and other heroes on the show without taking away from her thunder. The first appearance of Superman on Supergirl was perfect. He was used right--just enough to be a help to HER (not the other way around), without weakening him to make her look good (unlike the subsequent appearance which was awful and made her look terrible).
Right now, they wrote a story that would 100 percent have his attention. His absence is taking away from her thunder.
All they have to do is establish that this is a world threatening event, and that Superman is elsewhere doing amazing things to fight back, and we can focus on Supergirl. We don't need to see him, but yes, he's a part of this universe and his absence makes no sense.
Depends on the story. If it's one villain that Superman can handle, then no. But a story like this, involving Krypton, absolutely.
Give you a perfect example--Doomsday. At the time of that battle, Supergirl was not Kara Zor El, and while her specific absence wasn't noticed (the altered version actually did help toward the end and got beat up badly), my question was, "where was Wonder Woman and the better heroes?"
She is physically on par, but not his superior, except when you have writers that have a chip on their shoulder and poorly write Superman. But yes, there would be situations where they would certainly need each other and both would welcome it. For example, if Darkseid invaded Earth, Superman would hardly turn down Supergirl's help.
And vice versa.
But as pointed out by others, Superman is the hero to superheroes, including Kara. He is her mentor and inspiration. She is what she is because he is who he is. Even with physical power near his levels, she looks up to his wisdom as a mentor.
Agreed, but when you have a world killing event, Superman would get involved.
The storyline as written IS a genuine reason to do so.
In fairness, there is no Superman series on CW. If there were, and if an event like this happened, then yes, "where's Supergirl" would be a fair question.
Oh, and as for Superboy the series, I loved Seasons 2-4. For the budget and the time, it was very well done. And yes, I loved Stacy Haiduk too.
No, it's more like show both sides of an argument if you're gonna inject politics into a script. But don't make it the focus of the show's story. (of course some people have to go with suggestions like this, it's a common tactic, sheesh you could almost write a book detailing common SJW and leftist responses on message boards and end up at 100% of how they think so much alike it's like combatting Borg drones! Too Funny)
It’s not a public service, it’s a privately funded and commercially sold entertainment. It’s free to inject whatever politics it likes without permission from those who might disapprove. No one is required to give “equal time” (a laughable complaint from any US-based supporter of the GOP, given the dismantling, at its behest, of the former requirements for the press to do that during elections).
At the risk of being contentious, she did beat him in a straight fight where he was fully powered and going all out. If either has a canon claim for being physically more powerful, she should edge it.
Or are we not supposed to mention that?
Last edited:
Love?
^ It's what makes a Subaru, a Subaru.
Surely you can see the logical fallacy at play here.....
Apart from the fact art is under no obligation to be impartial (quite the opposite in fact, many would say it has a duty to challenge), your argument presupposes each side of an argument has equal standing, that evening the airtime balances the portrayal.
Clearly this isn't true, some arguments are just one sided to any objective outsider. If you were to tell me there's an invisible force in the universe which draws objects together according to an almost perfectly predictable set of equations, which all things being equal causes objects to fall to the floor at a given rate of acceleration at sea level, but I objected saying it isn't true at all, things just float around according to some Brownian motion there wouldn't be a "both sides" to portray.
There would be one person (you) making a virtually conclusively verified observation and another just talking nonsense.
Whilst the extreme analogy might be slightly overstating the case, the same principle applies here.
In terms of supporting Superman, she's pretty good, but on her best day, she's no Superman. She only exists because Superman was popular.
At the risk of being contentious, she did beat him in a straight fight where he was fully powered and going all out. If either has a canon claim for being physically more powerful, she should edge it.
Or are we not supposed to mention that?
Yes--the worst moment of the series--bad writing. If the writers have to make Superman weak to make Supergirl strong, they did not do Supergirl any justice.
That's the exact OPPOSITE of feminism too. Also, Supergirl collapsed in that fight too, so the writers went even further to make Superman look weak by not even accurately talking about what happened. 80 years of history cannot be erased by writers desperately trying to make their character look good at the expense of the stronger one. The only situation dumber than this was Batman beating Superman in any scenario.
Lots of people disagreed with you, that's the joy of subjective statements.
I'm sure you have examples of Superman overpowering Supergirl.
Which seems to happen quite a lot, it's almost as though your version of the DC canon is different from the one in the comics, or you're picking and choosing when the source material is convenient.
On her best day, she's better.
I have so many variations on comebacks to this, every single one being blanket inappropriate or at least insulting to someone or other....
Surely you can see the logical fallacy at play here.....
Apart from the fact art is under no obligation to be impartial (quite the opposite in fact, many would say it has a duty to challenge), your argument presupposes each side of an argument has equal standing, that evening the airtime balances the portrayal.
Clearly this isn't true, some arguments are just one sided to any objective outsider. If you were to tell me there's an invisible force in the universe which draws objects together according to an almost perfectly predictable set of equations, which all things being equal causes objects to fall to the floor at a given rate of acceleration at sea level, but I objected saying it isn't true at all, things just float around according to some Brownian motion there wouldn't be a "both sides" to portray.
There would be one person (you) making a virtually conclusively verified observation and another just talking nonsense.
Whilst the extreme analogy might be slightly overstating the case, the same principle applies here.
you're correct, there are universal norms that most societies take as being of one clear POV, and yet it differs from culture to culture. Let's take the idea of capital punishment, the idea that someone deserves to die because of their crime, usually it's Homicide. While the debate still wages on here in the USA, it is outlawed in other nations. Just like Gay marriage has been legalized by the courts here, in the Middle East, capital punishment is the "cure" so to speak that they employ, which we find abhorrent behavior, but is legal and encouraged in those nations. So were we born there, would we have the same perspective we have now, or would we see it from the perspective we were raised in? Indeed, this is a good question. Is there intrinsic norms of morality that we instinctively know, or are we a product of not just the environment, but the culture around us?
You suppose that there are obviously correct sides to the argument that any objective outsider can see, and yet you don't take into account that the perspective of the Objective outsider has as with any human, a preconceived belief system, that will color their input and thus conclusions on a given subject. This is why in the recent election, the majority of like minded individuals on the coasts of the US voted for Hillary, and those in the middle of the country, generally looked down upon by those on the coasts, voted for Trump. Similar perspectives will color anyone's decision, or view point. So while I am amused by your Gravity analogy, and I mean that sincerely, that was a great example. I am also impressed that our conversation doesn't involve going to some gamesmanship in condescension and insinuating insults.. You are a breath of fresh air.
Anyhow, I have to disagree with your assertion that there are correct answers to all the arguments, when it comes to the producers and writers of the show, they write their perspectives based on their own values, and in so doing are only speaking to one audience, one they know agrees with their assumptions and perspectives. I submit that does nothing to challenge anyone, as is the case with so much media and choices, we are more divided then ever, and retreat to our echo chambers and safe spaces, including entertainment, and thus the divide and erosion continue. It's the middle ground I contend is the best and most profitable way forward, and to include making a property more accessible to everyone then those who are only seeing one side reinforcement of their ideological slant. I will also contend that the focus on Political issues is not new. However, the degree of blatancy over allegorical allusions to topics has gone out the window, and to top that when there is simple fan outcry, there is an immediate, and merciless attack by media, websites, blogs, twitter, and studios and writers themselves. This business model seems horrible to me. Attack the fans.. yea, that works.
Just go down the middle, or be A-political and then there's no controversy just focus on the story, if well written.
Superboy was a 1/2 hour live action tv series that ran for four seasons, between 1988 and 1992.
the titular character was recast between season one and two.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094559/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
John Newton was 24 when he started playing Clark Kent/Superboy.
Gerard Christopher was 30 when he started playing Clark Kent/Superboy.
Season One is pretty bad.
I'd had a major man crush on John Haymes Newton before I even knew I had gay leanings.
I was a late bloomer. I don't know why I'm saying this. It's just as an aside.
So you write three long paragraphs on how bad it is that people are stuck in their echo chambers, and your conclusion to this is: "Don't do even try exposing people to other viewpoints in any way"
True, but that isn't the point I'm making. I'm not talking about the moral relativism which exists between cultures and their differing perspectives. I'm talking about objectively verifiable observations. In this case the subjective norms you mention are nowhere near the kind of factor you suggest.
Gun bans literally do work, there's simply no way of looking objectively at the results and drawing any other conclusion. The US public is in fact strongly in favour of tightening those gun controls, rendering any case this is even about public perception falling out if line with the data somewhat weak to say the least.
The real issue is the unwarranted political influence the gun lobby has over your political system. politicians claim a lack of political support, what they really mean is there is a lack of support amongst the professional political class given the investments made by that lobby in their political interests.
There were cultural objections to Galileo, but that doesn't alter the fact his data and empirical observations were good. Do you have any idea how clear cut the case against an armed public is once you take away the deliberately muddied waters?
Of course they do, they're making a piece of art, that's the point of good art.
This thread would seem to suggest otherwise, the fact we are having this conversation is due to people's reactions to that challenge.
Making apolitical TV is easy. Making TV that is profitable even easier. If profit margins are the only measure of worth then we'd all be watching Big Brother, porn and not a lot else. I don't know about you but I'd rather my entertainment had more substance than that.
If we suppose just for a moment that as an art form TV making has some purpose other than maximising profit margins then of course it should be open to political statements. That's what art is.
The thing that really bothered me is Kara never mentions Kal-El being alive to her mother. Or am I forgetting something? The original plan was for the older Kara to watch over her younger cousin. She told Alura about being raised by the Danvers. Yet skipped over the huge detail of an adult Kal-El finding her own Earth and him choosing the Danvers to raise her.
Kal is Jor's and Lara's son, not Alura and Zor's. And Superman doesn't have to help her in everything, either, just like in her comic book.
My sister's kids are the worst.
Shitting and pissing everywhere.
I fucking hate teenagers.
Shitting and pissing everywhere.
I fucking hate teenagers.
- Status