Supergirl - Season Four

The dialogue was there to reaffirm that she's a woman because she gets a power that only women get.

That unlike the writers and the characters in that scene you can't accept this simple sentence an immediately jump to point out how she's different and how this fictional power shouldn't apply to her says more about you than the writers...

 

I bet it’s something males get in her race and she changed it so she didn’t have to tell everyone she is transgender

 

Nicole Maines says:

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/super...aying-tvs-first-transgender-superhero-dreamer

Nia's mother and sister have also been cast and will appear soon.

https://deadline.com/2018/11/superg...-as-maeve-isabel-nal-in-cw-series-1202500065/

So we clearly don't have the whole story of the nature and origins of her powers yet. Patience, people.

 

Do you know what a no-prize is?

 

The 'trait' is attributed to gender and not organs.

 

I wish people would stop ascribing current USA politics to this show's world view.

For instance, it always bugged me that people assumed that the show runners made the President a female because they wanted Hillary to win. I found that argument silly since from the very 1st ep we saw her in, we knew the Prez was an alien and therefore likely not eligible to be the Prez,,, not something a left winged liberal show runner would have been likely to insinuate about our 1st female President if they were Clinton fans and she actually won the electoral college in 2016.

In that same vein, her (Marsdin) Vice President should not be considered an "evil" conservative just because he's concerned about his poll numbers and therefore that story line is yet another veiled attack upon the current IRL occupant of the Whitehouse ... it just means Boxleitner's character is an evil politician.

I used to think Col Haley was his "Wormtongue" but given the way he's yelling at both her and Alex, it looks like she doesn't hold any undue influence over him.

As for the "go to war" with Supergirl comment, I suspect they are foreshadowing the war between Comrade Kara and the DEO, and if Kara is really "out" of the organization lets hope Brainy follows her out the door since I can't see Lena coming to her aid unless SG is on death's door again.

Speaking of Lena (previous poster), I scrolled thru Ahimsa and never saw a dossier on Alex in Lena's possession. Did I miss it or was said dossier in another episode ?

I do recall Lena telling Alex last year (season 3) that she always knew Alex was DEO not FBI, but that's all. No direct logic line from Alex = DEO to Kara = SG. I can see Lena assuming SG and Kara were both raised as Alex's foster sisters after Kara Zorel's mom's effusive hugging of Alex last year and the fact that SG and Kara know each other well enough to have coffee together at Kara's apartment (season 2, the ep SG caught Lena when she was tossed / fell from her balcony).

 

There are about 47 different ways each week to attempt to claim that prize without being purposefully hurtful to a group of people.

Stick to those.

 

I was defending her.

 

Huh? Supergirl has always been an obvious and unabashed commentary on contemporary real-world politics, just as Superman was in its early years in comics and radio in the 1930s-40s.

Actually we didn't learn until the season 2 finale that Marsdin was ineligible. The Constitution doesn't require a president to be human, only that they be born in the United States. If Marsdin had been born in the US, if her parents had emigrated here before she was born, then her species would not have disqualified her.

And the show's progressive sympathies were made quite clear in season 1, well before Marsdin was introduced. The fact that a fictional character isn't a 100% exact parallel for a real person doesn't disprove that, because that's just how fiction works. Fictional parallels aren't meant to be 100% exact. It's the broad strokes that matter, not the niggly details. Political allegory is not about the superficial horse-race details of who won what election or whatever, it's about the overall themes and moral issues. It's bizarre to suggest that a show that blatantly presents itself as anti-bigotry and pro-immigrant is somehow not taking sides in the current American political climate. It's not just about Secretary Clinton, because unlike the current GOP, the Democratic/progressive side is not a personality cult. It's not about one person, it's about the hundreds of millions of people who are harmed by intolerance and injustice.

 

But that's not DC, and it has been done by Marvel. Do that, and you have a show that is the wrong tone, and will be accused of copying the competition.

These writers are known for shoving politics down the viewers' throats. And they 100 percent wanted Hillary to win. Lynda Carter's character was based on their absolutely warped interpretation of who Hillary is. And hell, they even called one of their episodes "Nevertheless, she persisted," a Hillary tagline.

This show has been butthurt ever since Trump won, and it changed the direction of the show to a democrat commercial.

Regarding the trans thing, I'm sure they will get back to it. They have a box to check in their PC assault on the viewer. If they don't throw her transgenderness in everyone's face, and just treat her as a character that happens to be transgender, then they lose points with their liberal PC masters. Can't have that. So don't worry.

 

Re: Baker, I don't think it's right or fair to describe him as "evil" simply because he's being played up as an antagonist to Kara.

 

Agreed. I don't think we fully know his motivations or his agenda yet. All we know right now is that he's being hard nosed and standing up to Kara. Also, evil is a moral characteristic whereas antagonist is a relationship between characters. A character can be an antagonist without being evil. Having said all that, I would not be surprised if Baker turned out to be a minor villain being manipulated by the greater villain. Sadly, these shows tend to go for the simplistic approach of making the antagonist evil by default because any character that opposes our hero has to have some nefarious agenda.

 

I really hope you're right here. If they are smart, they would create a disagreement where both have valid points. He is the President, and does have to be attune to the fears and desires of the people he serves.

And yes, superpowered beings would be something to fear.

But this is the DC universe, where heroic superpowered beings ARE treated as heroes and are NOT feared.

Take that away, and you have Marvel, and you stray from the core of what makes the DC universe so special. The movies tried this tactic with having people fear Superman, and it failed miserably because it's just not what Superman is about. Supergirl is an extension of that, and I really feel they are going in the wrong direction right now.

 

Um, treating her as a character who just happens to be transgender is EXACTLY how they've been handling the character so far. It was mentioned once, in a conversation with Olsen, and has not been treated as a big deal since. Nia's "big secret" was that she could dream the future and her storyline has revolved around that.

 

He’s the President. Of course he’s evil.

 

Good point. So far, she brought up her status as a point of information / sharing with James, but she's not running around saying, "Hello, I'm trans. Didn't you know?" to everyone on the street. I do expect a necessary scene where she explains how she made that choice when her family is introduced (backstory purposes), but the series has not made a "Very Special Episode" out of her, which is what we can assume the character would not want. Just seen for who she is.

 

And that is pretty much why I have no issue with her being trans other than the politically correct checking of the box. But these writers have historically not been so subtle about these things, and based on past history, it seems inevitable that they are going to be more over the top with it.

If they keep that, then maybe they have learned something.

 

Such Blinders-On nonsense. The American Left is all about the cult of personality; from Bill Clinton, who was widely sold as everything as the "first rock 'n' roll president" to the offensive "first black president", he was one of the most glaring cases of an American politician being elevated to the status of idol since Huey Long, which explains how most of the Democrats/Left placed him on so high a throne, that they aggressively defended him from every sex scandal / rape accusation, actually attacking the accusers as being liars, gold-diggers, sluts, etc., which makes their recent outrage about Kavanaugh not one of genuine care for victims, but Outrage of Convenience. Hypocritical in the extreme. But Bill Clinton is still treated as the Elder Statesman from On High.

Then there's Obama, who--in an astoundingly blasphemous way--was referred to as a "Second Coming" by some on the Left, which was not only an insult for the most obvious reason (an elected official is no savior), but the assumption which angered many in the black community that this man--a true marketing campaign of the post-New Left--was seen as the savior of, or some fulfilled prophecy (as packaged by the controlling white Democratic party powers that be) for all black people, when his actions for black interests were seen as marginal at best--but not to the Democratic/Left and their media mouthpieces.

Understanding that requires someone actually know black people well enough to have heard their honest opinion on Obama being a Democratic party manufactured idol...and that's not be found anywhere near the HuffPo or The Roots of the world, where you will never learn about (for one example) their more open resentment about what they considered his user mentality toward black people (for votes more than truly addressing their longstanding concerns / needs), while helping everyone else during his 8 years. Ahh, but that does not matter, as to this day, the Democrats/Left celebrate him as if he's God/movie star/MLK/Gandhi all rolled into one, which has nothing to do with his being the first black president, but his being a figurehead for their issues.....but yeah, continue trying to sell that Straight-From-Disneyland notion that the Democratic/progressive side is not well-invested in the cult of personality.

 

I don‘t think we need to see an explanation for why she transitioned, it‘s pretty self-explanatory for trans people.

 

Without totally derailing this thread, that was (IMO) always more of a strawman from the Right as I saw it. Never really saw people on the left saying that, but saw Fox News SAYING people on the left said that so that they could dismiss their actual opinions. If you say you like something, I have to debate your point of view. if I say you're a crazy fanboi, I don't have to engage, I can just mock you for being over the top. that sorta thing.

people definitely had unrealistic expectations about him, especially with Republicans in control of Congress, but never saw people putting him up as second coming. Definitely saw the Right use the term 'anti-christ' though... :shrugs: