I read somewhere the character of Supergirl was removed from DC canon in one the Crisis events and then brought back into canon many years later. So who can say what will happen if DC decides to have another comics reboot.
Supergirl - Season Four
- Thread starter Kai "the spy"
- Start date
I read somewhere the character of Supergirl was removed from DC canon in one the Crisis events and then brought back into canon many years later. So who can say what will happen if DC decides to have another comics reboot.
In the original Crisis on Infinite Earths, in fact. The pre-Crisis Kara Zor-El and Barry Allen both died in that event (something alluded to in the Arrowverse's Elseworlds crossover), and then when the Superman continuity was rebooted post-Crisis, the DC editors wanted to go back to Superman being the sole survivor of Krypton. So when we did get a Supergirl a few years later, she was actually a shapeshifting artificial life form or something, and then went through various other revamps. Kara Zor-El of Krypton was finally restored to continuity in 2004.
I suspect that the decision to kill off Supergirl in 1986 may have been partly the result of the failure of the 1984 Supergirl movie. But the TV series is very popular, so I doubt there's any risk of a repetition anytime soon.
I suppose you dislike John Diggle and the myriad of personal dramas he's subjected us to over 7 seasons?
(Darn autocorrect, its trying to write his name as John Wiggle!
)
Supergirl was never actually liked that much by the DC editors of the time, much the same as Batgirl. Basically, they were considered....silly.
And that CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN COMICS.
Similarly, they were confused that even a decade later, Batgirl and Supergirl were the most famous female superheroes at DC as well as the most beloved after WW. It put them in an odd position that female readers (and plenty of male) loved them.
And that CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN COMICS.
Similarly, they were confused that even a decade later, Batgirl and Supergirl were the most famous female superheroes at DC as well as the most beloved after WW. It put them in an odd position that female readers (and plenty of male) loved them.
John Diggle never became the focus of the show to the exclusion of Oliver. John's story was always somehow relevant to the episode and/or arc as a whole. They also didn't use John as some sort of statement of how woke they are, which they clearly do with Alex. Alex's sole purpose it for the writers to get some personal gratification as to how enlightened they are, and to display fake outrage when people call them out on their decisions regarding her.
^ WTF are you on about now? Alex is Kara's sister and a DEO agent, and is absolutely central to the show in both capacities. The element of her sexuality (that you so snidely dismiss as a display of "wokeness," betraying your true issues) was not even introduced until Season 2, by which time she was already well-established as the second most important character on the show.
I think when talking about any baby being relevant comes down to whether or not it will be aged up enough to actually be a character and will it have super powers or be connected to bigger story arcs in someway or will it just be a prop which is what most tv babies become. Also will it enhance Alec as a character or will it be something they have to write around and regret adding next season when they get tired of doing the, Alec wants to be a mom, story which is barely a story especially compared to what everyone else has going on.
It's not even right now the most dominant Alec storyline. That would be having her memories erased. Now if they can connect that with the baby stuff then it will make it seem worthwhile or the bad guys are able to leverage her wanting to be a mom for some goal then it also works better. Even if the show was a old school stand alone show were each story is self contained it would work better IMO. Me personally it does feel like a waste of time with little interesting payoff.
Jason
It's not even right now the most dominant Alec storyline. That would be having her memories erased. Now if they can connect that with the baby stuff then it will make it seem worthwhile or the bad guys are able to leverage her wanting to be a mom for some goal then it also works better. Even if the show was a old school stand alone show were each story is self contained it would work better IMO. Me personally it does feel like a waste of time with little interesting payoff.
Jason
^ You're overthinking it. Bottom line: babies bad.
Your post is dismissive of two month old thespians, there's nuances to cooing, pooping and projectile vomiting and plenty of ways to invest character in a role of a newborn.
Well, the story here wasn't about Alex getting a baby -- it was about Alex failing to get a baby. The adoption process can be frustrating. It can take years of trying and multiple false starts before it comes together, if it ever does. And since Alex's character arc here is defined by really wanting a baby, it's natural that the stories focus on frustrating that desire rather than granting it. The way fiction usually works, if Alex were reluctant to be a mother, then she'd have motherhood thrust upon her; but since she really wants it, she can't get it.
Plus, of course, the purpose of this plot thread was to bring Alex and Kelly closer to romance, so the baby angle was just an excuse for them to bond.
The above is exactly the fake outrage I was talking about. This is a superhero show, not a show about SJWs and I don't need politics on my TV. That the writers made her character all about her sexuality is on them. Yes, it was in season 2, and before that, she was a good character, then she became the poster child for whatever the writers wanted to force on the viewer. If they truly cared about some sort of equality, her sexuality would be portrayed like Sulu in Star Trek Beyond. No big deal. But the writers needed to make her a political statement, daring anyone to challenge it. Then people can be outraged. Good to see there are people that illustrate that point.
This show works when it's a superhero show, not a liberal platform.
Gay character exists on TV show.
Gay character -- like every major character on this and every other series -- has story threads focusing on her.
Gay character -- again, like every other TV character of comparable prominence -- has stories that are sometimes less plot-driven, more personal, and even romantic.
Gay character is the only one whose subplots are seen by certain viewers as somehow "political," being "about SJWs," and being "forced" on the audience.
Gay character, by merely existing, makes bigots show their asses.
Gay character, a supporting character, becomes the entire focus of the show, to the detriment of everyone else, changing the premise of the show. That's not like every other show. Sorry. Gay character, by being focused on, makes fake outrage from liberals come out like trained monkeys.
Bigots misrepresent gay character's role on show.
Bigots implicitly attempt to deny their bigotry.
Bigots convince no one.
Bigots implicitly attempt to deny their bigotry.
Bigots convince no one.
Ergo, bigots are morons. QED
If people are leaving the show because they can't handle the show's politics than that is on them, and not the show, and as long as the show since it's not canceled, I say good riddence. I still with 100% honesty don't understand how any decent person could be offended by anything on the show anyways.
If they are the kind of writers you are talking about, then I hope they stay as far away from the show as possible.
Alex is Kara's sister, and has been a major part of the show since the beginning, so she has every write to have this kind of story. Just because you can't handle doesn't mean it shouldn't be on the show.
This storyline is revelant and interesting, and Kelly is a new character, but it looks like they are setting her up to be play an important part in Alex's life, so there's plenty of reason for her to be involved in this story. If things keep going the way they appear be going, and Alex does end up adopting a baby, then Kelly's probably going end up being the other parent.
That's really not the best example for this kind of a situation, because I saw quite few people complaining about how Sulu's sexuality was handled in Star Trek Beyond.
Let's say you have an issue with a show--any issue--wouldn't you say something? Not every issue is a dealbreaker that would make you want to stop watching, but that doesn't mean you can't speak your mind, and you should be entitled to do so without fake outrage. If you had an issue with Star Trek, and how a character is being written, would you stop watching, or would you speak your mind in hopes of improvement? How many shows have been altered when writers heard the complaints?
Comic book writers? Hell, these writers have the talent, but they choose to go in other directions. They have turned some great characters into political activists that are not very likeable to half the country.
This is a comic book hero show. This is the end of the season. If they weren't trying to show how "woke" they are, they wouldn't be shoving 20 minutes of Alex being a mom into one of the last episodes of the season.
Not on a comic book show. Maybe on a spin off.
Well, I think you are thinking more of the decision to make Sulu gay, rather than the execution. Even George Takei didn't like making Sulu gay--just because he is. Yes, that was a PC move, BUT, and there's a big difference--the execution of how it was done was so much better than anything they do on Supergirl.
They didn't make a big deal out of Sulu's sexuality. It just was. He had a significant other, he had a family, and they greeted each other no differently than any other family. It's not like they broke from the action to give Sulu half the movie.
Ironically, the closest equivalent in Abrams Star Trek is a romance that is straight--Spock and Uhura. Like Alex, it's forced on the audience, many of whom don't want to see it, and it took away from the main story.
A movie and TV series are two different things. They might have approached and developed Sulu's character differently if they had a whole season of episodes to fill.
I might make a comment once or twice, but if it continued I'd either stop watching and find something that didn't bother me, or I would just accept that that was part of the show and stop complaining about it constantly.
Well then obviously this show isn't for that half of the country.
And as for the comic books themselves, they are constantly filled with this kind of personal drama, so it's ridiculous to complain about it being in the show.
And this has been an ongoing story for a while, so it has just as much right to be in the episode as the other stuff.
If it's in the comics, then it should be allowed to be in the shows too.
And I also saw people who thought that it was to vague, and that it should have been made clearer that the people Sulu was with were his husband and child.
In part because movies rely more on overseas box-office returns from countries that still censor any hint of LGBT content, so the bottom line forces them to be less progressive than TV shows can be.
And equally ridiculous to complain about social activism in comics-based stories. Siegel & Shuster's original Superman comics were fiercely social-activist and left-wing, the post-WWII Superman radio series did numerous stories condemning racial and religious bigotry and anti-immigrant fearmongering, Marston's Wonder Woman was intensely feminist, and Captain America was punching Hitler when being anti-Nazi was still a controversial stance in the US. Superheroes were the original social justice warriors.
