Spoilers Supergirl - Season 5

[Ovation]

As someone who DID grow up with it (I was 6 in 1969 and watching on NBC) - this argument above is UTTTER BULLSHIT. TOS (like current modern Trek ala ST: D and ST: P) was always seen as progressive and socially conscious/farward thinking all the way from then - UP TO TODAY.

You may not like/or watch it for that aspect - but it's been part of what has made Star Trek the phenomena it's become since 1966. To say "well, that aspect should be discarded or called out because in your opinion, it's not needed/no longer relevant <--- Which AGAIN given the current condition of society at large and the rise of bigoted/fascist groups and world leaders who support them openly - it's a needed and valued part of the Star Trek DNA.

I don't think either point is necessarily contradictory. To note that 60s era Trek is not something that would be regarded, in relative terms, as progressive today (if it were exactly as it was and just coming out now) as it was considered over half a century ago does not negate its contextual progressivism. Nor does noting it would not be viewed as "cutting edge progressive" today denude it of its progressive qualities. One can make the same argument about Broken Arrow (1950), a western considered quite progressive in its day (though perhaps a touch more so than it deserved--much like TOS) but one that, if released as a new film today, would not be viewed as such, save in isolated moments. The changes in perspectives over time about progressive notions form the core of the assignment I give to my students with that film (and could easily apply to TOS compared to modern expectations as well).

I grew up with TOS as well (a bit later than you, I was six in 1973, when I first started watching TOS), and I'm an historian who frequently teaches American history, so I'm familiar with the point of view you're describing. But context does matter--and TOS, as is, would NOT be viewed as "progressive" nearly to the degree today (as something new) as it was when it was actually new. To acknowledge that point is not to be dismissive of TOS.

 

[Kirk Prime]

It's a non sequitur even to talk about "token" straight characters, because they're perceived as the default setting. Their presence is "normal," while the presence of gay characters, even if acceptable in some circumstances, has to be specifically justified. That seems to be the thrust of much of your argument, and I think it bears reconsidering. Gay characters don't need a reason to be there, any more than straight characters do.

Of course they are the default setting--that's why they can't be tokens, and that's why there can't be a "statement" in straight relationships.

I don't disagree with your last sentence--but the writers do. They make it a point to highlight it, even when it is not organic to the nature of the show--and THAT is their statement. That is where it goes wrong.

I think I have given examples where it worked--but it doesn't work in most examples because the writers care more about making their statement and being woke than actually doing things that are organic to the show--and that's not something limited to gay people.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

As someone who DID grow up with it (I was 6 in 1969 and watching on NBC) - this argument above is UTTTER BULLSHIT. TOS (like current modern Trek ala ST: D and ST: P) was always seen as progressive and socially conscious/farward thinking all the way from then - UP TO TODAY.

You may not like/or watch it for that aspect - but it's been part of what has made Star Trek the phenomena it's become since 1966. To say "well, that aspect should be discarded or called out because in your opinion, it's not needed/no longer relevant <--- Which AGAIN given the current condition of society at large and the rise of bigoted/fascist groups and world leaders who support them openly - it's a needed and valued part of the Star Trek DNA.

But... that is kind of what I said. To you, who watched it at the time when it was still relatively new, TOS was very progressive. To people like me, who were only introduced to it in the 80s and 90s (or even later on, for people even younger than me), TOS does not appear as progressive by our standards. We had other shows to measure it by, not the least of them being TNG. Think about this, we watched TOS and TNG at roughly the same time. Of course, TOS didn't seem as progressive to us as it was to you.

 

[Christopher]

But... that is kind of what I said. To you, who watched it at the time when it was still relatively new, TOS was very progressive. To people like me, who were only introduced to it in the 80s and 90s (or even later on, for people even younger than me), TOS does not appear as progressive by our standards. We had other shows to measure it by, not the least of them being TNG. Think about this, we watched TOS and TNG at roughly the same time. Of course, TOS didn't seem as progressive to us as it was to you.

Sure, but that doesn't make it valid when people say that it's somehow wrong for any Star Trek show to have progressive values, or that it's some kind of recent innovation for Trek to develop a social conscience.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I think it really has to do with the writing and the reasoning. Tokenism exists when they put something in there for the sole purpose of checking a box, and I do believe that often happens with gay characters, but never happens with straight characters.

Tokenism was at its most glaring and offensive in the use of Supergirl's James Olsen (which I covered in this thread) and the Star Wars sequels' Finn (covered in the Rise of Skywalker thread) both there not because they were a natural part of the story, where their identity--like black males in real life--was part of their world view, function and actions, but for White Hollywood Liberals on their Ivory Throne of "we know better" to make themselves feel they have both "instructed" the world (as if that is their anointed role) and provided a "gift" (in color only) to black audiences, when the very nature of those characters' actual presentation had the opposite effect with innumerable black audiences. We know Liberal acts of tokenism when we see it, and always have, and it comes from those who con themselves (and habitually attempt to con others) into believing they are the most open-minded, progressive ("we know better") people on the face of the planet.

 

[The Realist]

Tokenism was at its most glaring and offensive in the use of Supergirl's James Olsen (which I covered in this thread) and the Star Wars sequels' Finn (covered in the Rise of Skywalker thread) both there not because they were a natural part of the story, where their identity--like black males in real life--was part of their world view, function and actions, but for White Hollywood Liberals on their Ivory Throne of "we know better" to make themselves feel they have both "instructed" the world (as if that is their anointed role) and provided a "gift" (in color only) to black audiences, when the very nature of those characters' actual presentation had the opposite effect with innumerable black audiences. We know Liberal acts of tokenism when we see it, and always have, and it comes from those who con themselves (and habitually attempt to con others) into believing they are the most open-minded, progressive ("we know better") people on the face of the planet.

I'm curious why this seems to anger you so. Do you not believe the intention is good, even if the execution is imperfect? Are progressives actually the enemy, not simply flawed allies?

I would also think there's a case to be made for not writing TO a character's race, though I would agree that something like Black Lightning provides a strong argument for making race central to the narrative.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Sure, but that doesn't make it valid when people say that it's somehow wrong for any Star Trek show to have progressive values, or that it's some kind of recent innovation for Trek to develop a social conscience.

What the hell is this, "Put words into Kai's mouth"-week? @Tuskin38 asked how @Kirk Prime , not being "a fan of the woke culture", could be a Star Trek fan, which is where I came in trying to explain that, even if one could not enjoy a piece of fiction that holds a message one disagrees with, TOS does not appear as "woke" to younger people as it used to be when it first aired. That does not mean that I agree with Kirk Prime.

 

[JD]

I can't comment too much on Batwoman because I haven't watched it outside of Crisis. You make an interesting post and you ask a very fair question regarding Sarah.

The answer that is kind of. Sarah started out straight. I was never a fan of sudden changes in orientation. THAT wreaks of SJW political correctness. The same thing happened on Glee with a couple of characters.

But let's pretend that didn't happen and Sarah was gay from the start. The answer to that is I think is that it's a little over the top. It's nowhere near as bad as the Alex treatment on Supergirl, because with HER, that's her whole identity. On Supergirl, Alex could have been so many things and just someone who was gay. But they decided to be very heavy handed and make it her whole character. Sarah hasn't been given that treatment. I think they are a bit heavy handed with Sarah, but there is more to the character and I view quite positively overall. I like Sarah. I don't like Alex. The point is that not everything fits in one category. If I did that, then I would be judging characters solely on orientation rather than by how they are portrayed overall.

I have to admit, I slightly agree with you a little bit on Alex. Now, I've been around here enough, gotten into arguments with you specifically enough, that my stance on gay representation is pretty clear, but even I got a bit annoyed with Alex's story arcs. For a while it seemed like every story arc she got was only about her love life, even when all of the other characters were getting stories dealing with other parts of their lives. I think it has gotten a lot better the couple seasons, with her conflicts with that one Colonel something that was in charge of the DEO and now her leaving the DEO this season. Even though the character of Kelly has been kind of bland, they have managed to work that relationship into other parts of the show a bit better than some of her earlier ones.

Ultimately it's about entertainment. Different people enjoy different things. If you like it, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Watch. Enjoy. But people shouldn't judge or get all high and mighty over people who don't find it entertaining.

Oh yeah, I'm always of the opinion that if something doesn't appeal to you, you should just not watch it. I just wanted to let you know that the trailers you were judging your interest on don't necessarily give a complete picture of what the show is like.

 

[The Realist]

Of course they are the default setting--that's why they can't be tokens, and that's why there can't be a "statement" in straight relationships.

I don't disagree with your last sentence--but the writers do. They make it a point to highlight it, even when it is not organic to the nature of the show--and THAT is their statement. That is where it goes wrong.

I think I have given examples where it worked--but it doesn't work in most examples because the writers care more about making their statement and being woke than actually doing things that are organic to the show--and that's not something limited to gay people.

I appreciate this discussion. Obviously we're going to have to agree to disagree on some things, but I feel like there was an honest exchange here.

A suggestion, if I may (which you can obviously take or leave): I think it would be helpful if you would avoid buzzwords like "SJW" and "woke." To a lot of us, those are "fighting words," because they're deliberately dismissive and hostile toward principles we consider important. To your credit, you're clearly capable of and receptive to more thoughtful and less antagonistic discussion.

 

[Christopher]

What the hell is this, "Put words into Kai's mouth"-week?

No, I just felt that the point you were making was off-topic from the overall subject. I certainly do understand why younger people might find TOS less progressive, but as I said, that is not relevant to the debate over whether any Trek series should be progressive. Or whether a show like Supergirl should be, since that's the thread we're in and I assume Trek was only brought into the discussion as an analogy for the debate over whether superhero stories should have social messages. So it's not even really about TOS.

Heck, to apply your analogy to superhero comics, I daresay people today reading early Superman comics or listening to the radio show would find them extremely "woke" and progressive, since they wore their social consciousness on their sleeves. The post-WWII Superman radio storylines were so preachy about social justice and racial and religious tolerance that they make Supergirl seem subtle. Although of course they did have 1940s gender attitudes.

I have to admit, I slightly agree with you a little bit on Alex. Now, I've been around here enough, gotten into arguments with you specifically enough, that my stance on gay representation is pretty clear, but even I got a bit annoyed with Alex's story arcs. For a while it seemed like every story arc she got was only about her love life, even when all of the other characters were getting stories dealing with other parts of their lives.

I dunno, I think that's a reasonable direction to take for a character who's only just started to discover her true sexuality and explore what it means to her. It's plausible that someone who took that big a step would spend the next couple of years focused heavily on what it meant to her.

Also, I disagree that Alex's story arcs were all about her love life. Her personal life, yes, but not her love life, because her arc between her relationships with Maggie and Kelly was about her pursuit of adoption, her desire to become a parent whether a romantic partner was involved or not.

Even though the character of Kelly has been kind of bland, they have managed to work that relationship into other parts of the show a bit better than some of her earlier ones.

Earlier "ones?" Maggie was her only real romantic interest before Kelly, unless you count her one-night stand with Sara Lance. When she first realized she was lesbian, it was established that she'd never really been interested in men before and had assumed it was just because she was focused on her career and other things.

 

[Jinn]

What the hell is this, "Put words into Kai's mouth"-week?

You said that, not me

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I'm curious why this seems to anger you so. Do you not believe the intention is good, even if the execution is imperfect? Are progressives actually the enemy, not simply flawed allies?

As I posted earlier, we know Liberal acts of tokenism when we see it, and always have. It is not about "good intentions", but over a century of this kind of offensive, racially tokenized crap from the most pompous, "we know best" collective in the world (considering the power of the entertainment media). What's more offensive and unforgivable is that White Hollywood Liberals two decades into this century still play this utterly disrespectful game with characters like the screaming, stumbling, identity-stripped space janitor Finn (exactly like black stereotypes of the dawn of film & active into the early 50s), and the black-only-for-A-Very-Special-Episode, also identity-stripped and marginalized (among other items) James Olsen. Ah, but they "know best", so we're supposed to take it all in and praise them for a nice scratch on the head just for letting us play..

On Supergirl, every character whether main or under a rock had more development, respect (regarding spending time on who they are) than the once second-billed actor/character on the show. Speaks volumes of the kind written over a century. This was not a situation where they just did not know what to do with him, as he was created / added to the series for a reason--just not the one they will ever admit to.

I would also think there's a case to be made for not writing TO a character's race, though I would agree that something like Black Lightning provides a strong argument for making race central to the narrative.

..and how its part of the mature, realistic character identity / reason to be / call to action is just one of the many reasons Black Lightning is not the jewel in the CW-DC crown--its wearing the crown, while the subject of this thread used its one black male as flavor with no more connection to what a man like that would be in the world than a pile of action figures.

 

[The Realist]

As I posted earlier, we know Liberal acts of tokenism when we see it, and always have. It is not about "good intentions", but over a century of this kind of offensive, racially tokenized crap from the most pompous, "we know best" collective in the world (considering the power of the entertainment media). What's more offensive and unforgivable is that White Hollywood Liberals two decades into this century still play this utterly disrespectful game with characters like the screaming, stumbling, identity-stripped space janitor Finn (exactly like black stereotypes of the dawn of film & active into the early 50s), and the black-only-for-A-Very-Special-Episode, also identity-stripped and marginalized (among other items) James Olsen. Ah, but they "know best", so we're supposed to take it all in and praise them for a nice scratch on the head just for letting us play..

On Supergirl, every character whether main or under a rock had more development, respect (regarding spending time on who they are) than the once second-billed actor/character on the show. Speaks volumes of the kind written over a century. This was not a situation where they just did not know what to do with him, as he was created / added to the series for a reason--just not the one they will ever admit to.



..and how its part of the mature, realistic character identity / reason to be / call to action is just one of the many reasons Black Lightning is not the jewel in the CW-DC crown--its wearing the crown, while the subject of this thread used its one black male as flavor with no more connection to what a man like that would be in the world than a pile of action figures.

Um ... good talk?

A thought that occurred to me after I initially posted: You seem to have no problem with the portrayal of Luke on Batwoman, even though, as nearly as I can see, he's written essentially "race neutral." I'm not sure he's ever done or expressed anything that was specific to his racial identity. Am I wrong? And if not, why is that not offensive to you?

 

[Guy Gardener]

Well Luke is a prep schooled son of a billionaire... Who got shot in a 711.

Imagine any other billionaire IRL in the world going to the 711, after dark, in a bad part of town, to buy milk and scratchers?

Did Luke also have a thing with Julia?

Maybe when they were 11 and all they did was holding hands?

Duh.

Lucius had a mistress.

In the bad part of town.

His mistress might be part of a second family.

Luke has sibs.

PS...

Lucius named his son Luke, becuase he is a Star Wars fan.

He gets to say "Luke I am your father" when ever.

Luke is short for Lucius?

Junior or trip?

Lucius Fox XXIII?

Oh?

Not a woman.

Married Men go to the bad part of town to have sex with other men, so their family and friends don't find out.

Secrets.

Gay lover is less juicy than secret family.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

No, I just felt that the point you were making was off-topic from the overall subject. I certainly do understand why younger people might find TOS less progressive, but as I said, that is not relevant to the debate over whether any Trek series should be progressive. Or whether a show like Supergirl should be, since that's the thread we're in and I assume Trek was only brought into the discussion as an analogy for the debate over whether superhero stories should have social messages. So it's not even really about TOS.

Heck, to apply your analogy to superhero comics, I daresay people today reading early Superman comics or listening to the radio show would find them extremely "woke" and progressive, since they wore their social consciousness on their sleeves. The post-WWII Superman radio storylines were so preachy about social justice and racial and religious tolerance that they make Supergirl seem subtle. Although of course they did have 1940s gender attitudes.

Are you doing this to annoy me? Because I explained the context of my argument in the part of my post you chose not to quote.
And if you don't want Star Trek to be discussed in this thread, maybe you should get pissed at @Tuskin38 who brought Star Trek up to begin with, or at @Noname Given who responded to my post misinterpreting my point to a 180 degree, to which I had to respond if only to correct his misunderstanding
And you, taking this whole thing out of context while also apparently not willing to let it go, are not helping, either.

 

[Christopher]

Are you doing this to annoy me?

Of course not. We're complete strangers discussing ideas on a public forum. There's nothing personal about it.

 

[Guy Gardener]

It's a public forum, but this thread has 12 regular posters, many of whom you have blocked.

You've been locked in a room with the same 12 people for 5 years.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

What the hell is this, "Put words into Kai's mouth"-week?

Not an uncommon practice on this board by the usual suspects.

 

[The Realist]

So I've started watching You, starring Elizabeth Lail, who was apparently a top candidate for the part of Kara before Benoist got the part. Lail is really good, and I can totally see why she was in the running for the role. She definitely has a similar look and energy to Benoist.

I was idly thinking I'd like to visit an alternate Earth where Lail got the part, just to see her take, then realized that such a thing is actually possible in a way -- especially now that "Crisis" has established the existence of non-identical doppelgangers. Power Girl, anyone?

Even if not Lail, it might be fun to introduce PG to the Arrowverse as part of the next big crossover, or maybe just as a guest turn on Supergirl or Superman & Lois. I'd like to see them redesign the costume, though, at least to an extent. It's pretty obvious the boob window wouldn't fly, but I've always thought the costume was hideous in general -- everything from the color scheme to the big dumb gloves. I'd like to see them come up with something that invokes it, but redesigns it pretty radically.

Just some random thoughts to keep the thread occupied while we wait a freakin' year for more Supergirl.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I think it has gotten a lot better the couple seasons, with her conflicts with that one Colonel something that was in charge of the DEO and now her leaving the DEO this season.

While I'm not crazy about SuperAlex I agree they have gotten better balancing that character out as of late. Now if they can just get away from this whole VR business.

BTW, reading about Jimmy Olsen and Mehcad Brooks, I discovered this to my surprise. Interesting...
https://open.spotify.com/artist/0GXwM6aH3yWVLuijzhXt34?si=RgeFGVlGSiS_2IM6ZO
(dude is jacked)

He's pretty gracious about his departure FWIW