News Superman & Lois Ordered to Series at The CW

[Christopher]

There is no such thing as "cancel culture". It is an ultra right (and mainly white supremacist) invention. For hundreds of years many voices have been "cancelled" by the white male population in power. Non-white, non-heterosexual, until most recently non-male and, in the Western world, non-Christian views have been sidelined, marginalized, and not allowed in the mainstream. Now that people who don't represent those mainstream views have had enough of those who preach them--they don't want to hear speeches and opinions about bigotry and intolerence (racism) and they use their democratic right to shout down those same voices who have been responsible for repression (or cancel culture if you insist on using that term) for centuries.

I agree with your overall position, but I think you have the wrong impression of what "cancel culture" means. Cancel culture is the tendency of some fans to want to completely boycott any creation involving an actor, writer, or whatever who's been accused or found guilty of sexual assault, bigotry, etc., e.g. Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Orson Scott Card, J.K. Rowling, etc. There is a valid argument to be made that it's an overreaction, that you can reject a person's negative views and actions while still finding value in their creations. For instance, Alfred Hitchcock treated women horribly, but we can separate the art from the artist and still appreciate the brilliance of his films. Not to mention the fact that any movie is a collaborative creation of hundreds of people, and it's unfair to the rest to boycott their work just because one person involved in the film turned out to be a sexual predator or something. If the work itself is intrinsically racist or otherwise harmful, like Song of the South or Birth of a Nation or Gone with the Wind, then it's best to move it out of the "timeless classic celebrated by all" category and put it in the "viewer discretion strongly recommended due to problematical content" category, but if the problem is just with one actor or creator and isn't reflected in the work itself, then the work can still be appreciated independent of the person in question.

Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the right wing had corrupted the term and applied it too broadly to demonize the whole concept of holding people to account for their actions. But they did not invent the term "cancel culture," nor do they have a monopoly on it. I often see it argued against on Facebook by novelist Adam-Troy Castro, who's anything but right-wing and indeed is often quite outspoken in demolishing right-wing thinking, but is also a hardcore film buff who laments the tendency of many people to close their minds to anything that even reminds them of a problematical individual, even if the work in question bears no taint of the individual's crimes or hatreds beyond the mere fact of their participation.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the right wing had corrupted the term and applied it too broadly to demonize the whole concept of holding people to account for their actions.

I think this was the basic idea. This is also the perspective given by this opinion piece from Time [https://time.com/5735403/cancel-culture-is-not-real/]:

Cancel Culture Is Not Real—At Least Not in the Way People Think
BY SARAH HAGI NOVEMBER 21, 2019 6:43 AM EST

[...] Those who condemn cancel culture usually imply that it’s unfair and indiscriminate.

The problem with this perspective is cancel culture isn’t real, at least not in the way people believe it is. [...]

[...] racist, sexist, and bigoted behavior or remarks don’t fly like they used to. This applies to not only wealthy people or industry leaders but anyone whose privilege has historically shielded them from public scrutiny. Because they can’t handle this cultural shift, they rely on phrases like “cancel culture” to delegitimize the criticism. [...]​

 

[theenglish]

I agree with your overall position, but I think you have the wrong impression of what "cancel culture" means. Cancel culture is the tendency of some fans to want to completely boycott any creation involving an actor, writer, or whatever who's been accused or found guilty of sexual assault, bigotry, etc., e.g. Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, Orson Scott Card, J.K. Rowling, etc. There is a valid argument to be made that it's an overreaction, that you can reject a person's negative views and actions while still finding value in their creations.

Thanks for your points, Christopher. I do understand what this means--but what it is in practice is a term to place blame or guilt on the people who do call these things out. As if the people who are tired of such actions and calling out the actions or positions of certain people and groups are the ones to blame over the perpetrators themselves. Is there an over reaction--most likely--but it is an understandable reaction from those who have been placed in positions without power for many years.

But even in the cases you mentioned, I would point out the removal of The Cosby Show from rotation and Spacey's removal House of Cards and movies as being valid reactions. Bill Cosby wasn't just an actor on the show--it was his program and promoted values and attitudes that he did not practice himself. It is hurtful to his victims and others who have been violated to continue to air it. Similarly, Spacey's face on products sends a message of endorsement of his behaviour and disrespects much of the potential audience of his programs. I don't see attempts to remove his back catalogue from rotation, however.

In the discussion of Superman and Lois, I was accused of supporting cancel culture because somebody doesn't like a black man playing Lex Luthor. This is why I referred to the use of the term as racist. KP is not the only person who throws around the term as a way to justify racist or bigoted attitudes--and I don't think in the current climate of race relations the use of that term in the way it was used can be allowed to just pass without calling it out.

If the work itself is intrinsically racist or otherwise harmful, like Song of the South or Birth of a Nation or Gone with the Wind, then it's best to move it out of the "timeless classic celebrated by all" category and put it in the "viewer discretion strongly recommended due to problematical content" category, but if the problem is just with one actor or creator and isn't reflected in the work itself, then the work can still be appreciated independent of the person in question.

I agree with you completely on this.

Of course, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the right wing had corrupted the term and applied it too broadly to demonize the whole concept of holding people to account for their actions.

And hears what I am getting at and why the term has become racist. It is used as a "dog whistle" by the extreme right, including supporters of the current U.S. administration and parties inspired by them such as the People's Party of Canada here in Canada--an anti-immigration/make Canada great again style of party that wants to reverse the celebration of multiculturalism and the actions of the Truth and Reconciliation movement for indigenous peoples here in this country.

It is used as a term for those who boycott and protest against things like Anne Coulter or FOX news hosts/guests coming to speak at events here in Canada. In several cases events were cancelled because of the outcry.

In general, it has moved away from simply referring artistic creations to attempting to demonize people who call out racist and bigoted attitudes against women, non-whites, and non-binary gendered people.

 

[crookeddy]

Yeah ok, cancel culture doesn't exist when every day twitter has a #someoneFamousIsOverParty trending. The virtue signaling on this board is getting nauseating!

 

[Christopher]

Thanks for your points, Christopher. I do understand what this means--but what it is in practice is a term to place blame or guilt on the people who do call these things out.

No, it is not. I'm sure that some people twist it that way, but they have no exclusive claim to the term, and you're just giving into them if you accept their use of it as the only one that exists. If you assume their misuse is the only use, you're letting them control the narrative.

But even in the cases you mentioned, I would point out the removal of The Cosby Show from rotation and Spacey's removal House of Cards and movies as being valid reactions.

Of course they are. My whole point is that this isn't a simple issue that you can reduce to a single universal formula. That kind of all-or-nothing oversimplification is exactly the problem. This is a complicated issue that should be approached with careful thought, not kneejerk impulse and blanket generalizations.

As for Cosby, I'm very betrayed by what he did, because I grew up with Fat Albert as one of my main moral compasses, and Cosby's image as an educator promoting positive, respectful values was badly tainted by the truth about his behavior. But I'm told that the Cosby we saw on the screen there was largely a construct of other people, a role he was playing, and that makes it easier to separate it from the reality. The role is not the performer, it's just a job the performer is paid to do. I don't know anything about the personal life or morality of the clerk who checks my groceries, but I don't need to; I just need them to do that one job for me, and it's not about who they are in another capacity. Acting creates an illusion of personal connection or intimacy, but it's really just a job like any other.

And I certainly wouldn't approve of seeing all of Cosby's past works removed forever from circulation. I Spy in particular was of historic importance, the first series to cast an African-American co-lead and portray him in a respectful, non-stereotyped way. That was a great, positive accomplishment, and though it's hard to reconcile with knowing the evils of the man who achieved it, I don't think we should allow that side of him to taint the good of what he achieved. People are complicated. There's a saying that no person is as bad as their worst act or as good as their best act. We're all full of contradictions, some more extreme than others. I think if we throw out all the good a person did because of something bad that they did, then it makes things worse in the overall balance. Of course the good doesn't excuse the bad, but by the same token, the bad shouldn't invalidate the good.

As for Kevin Spacey, yes, remove him from productions going forward. But don't eliminate the movies and shows he made from existence. Many people contributed to those creations and they don't deserve to be punished for one colleague's misdeeds.

In the discussion of Superman and Lois, I was accused of supporting cancel culture because somebody doesn't like a black man playing Lex Luthor. This is why I referred to the use of the term as racist.

And my point, once again, is that that is a misuse of the term.

KP is not the only person who throws around the term as a way to justify racist or bigoted attitudes--and I don't think in the current climate of race relations the use of that term in the way it was used can be allowed to just pass without calling it out.

Yes, call it out when it's used that way. That's what I'm doing -- I'm calling it out by clarifying that they've co-opted the term, warped it from a legitimate criticism into a racist gotcha.

We have got to stop letting the right wing redefine language. We have got to stop letting them steal our terms and twist them to their own ends. Just because they use a term in a certain way does NOT mean we have to accept their redefinitions. We need to start standing up and saying, "No, you cannot have that word, this is what it actually means instead."

 

[Ovation]

Yeah ok, cancel culture doesn't exist when every day twitter has a #someoneFamousIsOverParty trending. The virtue signaling on this board is getting nauseating!

Yawning. Intensifies.

 

[DEWLine]

Amen to this, @Christopher:
We have got to stop letting the right wing redefine language. We have got to stop letting them steal our terms and twist them to their own ends. Just because they use a term in a certain way does NOT mean we have to accept their redefinitions. We need to start standing up and saying, "No, you cannot have that word, this is what it actually means instead."

And now back to our discussion of Superman and Lois (or whatever it ends up called).

 

[theenglish]

Personally, I am still really looking forward to this series. I would have preferred that they let Cryer be the one and only Lex Luthor--and perhaps introduced (re-introduced?) Morgan Edge to take his place. Intergang would have been just as much of a nemesis for the program, and it could have paved the way to introducing some of the New Gods to the Arrowverse.

That said, I am hoping that the series doesn't go the route of making it a teen show with the kids as the primary focus and Lois and Clark relegated to the role of Ma and Pa Kent--I would like it to be a true Superman Family show. We have Conner Kent and Jonathan Kent in the main continuity now--no reason they couldn't do something similar with the new series and have Conner as a hybrid clone, which could allow for some interesting character moments.

 

[The Realist]

I think it's very unlikely to become a "teen show," though I do expect the boys to feature prominently. Ideally, the balance would be something like Black Lightning, where you have a family of four, all of whom are well-developed as characters, have strong dynamics among them, and are able to drive and carry storylines.

 

[Christopher]

That said, I am hoping that the series doesn't go the route of making it a teen show with the kids as the primary focus and Lois and Clark relegated to the role of Ma and Pa Kent--I would like it to be a true Superman Family show.

Well, the show is called Superman and Lois, not Saga of the Super Sons or something.

The closest analogy in the extended Arrowverse would be Black Lightning, a show about a family of superheroes, focusing about equally on all four members of the family.

All the Arrowverse shows have centered on twentysomething leads or above; the only exception is Stargirl, which was developed for a different platform altogether. There's this perception that The CW is dominated by teen shows, but while there are some (e.g. Riverdale and Star-Crossed), they've never been the majority of the network's programming.

 

[The Realist]

I love it when Christopher basically repeats what I just said, because he has me on “Ignore.”

And the show is actually called Superman & Lois. Get with the ampersand, man.

 

[theenglish]

I think it's very unlikely to become a "teen show," though I do expect the boys to feature prominently. Ideally, the balance would be something like Black Lightning, where you have a family of four, all of whom are well-developed as characters, have strong dynamics among them, and are able to drive and carry storylines.

I think Black Lightning is a great example. It would be really interesting to have a show that deals with the difficulties of living in rural America with the same nuance and complexity as Black Lightning. Now that it is stuck in my head and depending how this show turns out, I would love to see a cross-over with Black Lightning.

 

[Christopher]

Now that it is stuck in my head and depending how this show turns out, I would love to see a cross-over with Black Lightning.

Oh, that's right, they're both on Earth Prime now. Yeah, a Superman/BL crossover would be good, since the comics' BL was originally based in Metropolis and shared continuity and characters with Superman (which is how Inspector Bill Henderson, a character originated on the '40s Superman radio series, ended up as a regular on the BL television series). It'd be cool to have the super-families team up and explore the parallels.

 

[theenglish]

Oh, that's right, they're both on Earth Prime now. Yeah, a Superman/BL crossover would be good, since the comics' BL was originally based in Metropolis and shared continuity and characters with Superman (which is how Inspector Bill Henderson, a character originated on the '40s Superman radio series, ended up as a regular on the BL television series). It'd be cool to have the super-families team up and explore the parallels.

Also, I am thinking about how the show could explore race relations in urban and rural America. It would be really interesting to show the Kent family visiting Freeland in one episode and then the Pierce family visiting Smallville. Of course, on the soap opera side they could pair up Jen with one of the Kent boys (or at least have them become good friends).

 

[crookeddy]

I love it when Christopher basically repeats what I just said, because he has me on “Ignore.”

And the show is actually called Superman & Lois. Get with the ampersand, man.

He has so many people on his ignore that he practically talks with 2-3 people on this whole board.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

But even in the cases you mentioned, I would point out the removal of The Cosby Show from rotation and Spacey's removal House of Cards and movies as being valid reactions. Bill Cosby wasn't just an actor on the show--it was his program and promoted values and attitudes that he did not practice himself. It is hurtful to his victims and others who have been violated to continue to air it. Similarly, Spacey's face on products sends a message of endorsement of his behaviour and disrespects much of the potential audience of his programs. I don't see attempts to remove his back catalogue from rotation, however.

This is the reason "cancel culture"--that practiced/enforced by White Liberals--is utterly divorced from honest intentions, as it is selective. Some "offenses" are worse than others, or rather, some undeniably despicable acts/behavior are more acceptable, hence the reason The Cosby Show has been pulled from rotation in markets across the U.S., but to this day, the films of Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen and Roman Polanski are constantly repackaged in physical media and celebrated on cable channels, film festivals, and in academia, with not a word about their unforgivable pedophilic lives and certainly no support of their victims. White Liberal "cancel culture" is vindictive & manipulative at best--aiming for targets when convenient, or to justify their self-appointed position on the "We know best" Throne of Judgement. Nevermind how hypocritical they are / how they are as far from being the moral authority as one can be when they honor sickening criminals like the three mentioned here, but Cosby is now treated with the same level of hatred and outrage once reserved for mass murderers like Ramirez or Manson. It sends a clear message that to the White Liberal Powers That Be, the accusation or proof that anyone raped children is to be doubted, questioned or ignored (or in Polanski's case, sign petitions in support of him), as those sitting on that aforementioned throne do not see it (and any associated behavioral sources that encouraged it) as one of the worst of all crimes.

The very reason no one in this society should ever accept or tolerate the sweeping attacks from "cancel culture" as its silence on certain people committing certain acts is another way of saying they accept the said acts.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

He has so many people on his ignore that he practically talks with 2-3 people on this whole board.

Really? Oh well.

 

[theenglish]

but to this day, the films of Charlie Chaplin, Woody Allen and Roman Polanski are constantly repackaged in physical media and celebrated on cable channels, film festivals, and in academia, with not a word about their unforgivable pedophilic lives and certainly no support of their victims.

Woody Allen and Polanski have been re-examined recently. But in the long term, what you are describing here isn't new by any stretch. People have called to boycott a creator or a work for various reasons for as long as I can remember. A creative work or point of view should be made available to the public, not destroyed. People who want to find anybody's television program or film work, can find it--it just is not being promoted by some corporations most like due to economic consideration rather than ethical.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Woody Allen and Polanski have been re-examined recently.

But they and their work are still celebrated and repackaged, not banished and villified on a seemingly universal level like Bill Cosby and his work, which--again--shows selective outrage from those associated with White Liberal "cancel culture" and shines a light on what they do not find offensive, criminal or intolerable.

Black people have long pointed out this selective outrage and revelation of what is accepted, hence the reason serious black thought leaders activists want nothing to do with the wave of White Liberal "We know best"/"cancel culture" censoring/banishment/character assassination, since it is not now, nor will it ever be applied to all who deserve it, and for the worst reason imaginable.

 

[JD]

Yeah, I've been confused about how many people seem to have no problem with Woody Allen for a long time now. I've seen a bit more controversy around new Polanski movies, but everybody still seems to go gaga over new Woody Allen movies. So many other people are basically banished from Hollywood at even the slightest accusation, but especially with Allen, nobody seems to have a problem being involved with his movies.