Spoilers Stargirl - Season One Discussion Thread
- Thread starter thribs
- Start date
You'd think with a name like that that she was Icicle's daughter...
Cindy Burrrrrrrrr-man.
Although Cindy sounds like fire rooted powers.
Last edited:
Well she does have a literal firestick.
Is it her father's stick?
Dragon Master ne Dragon Mistress.
If her full name is Cinderella that denotes transformation and an evil step family.
Gosh.
She does have a stepmother.
But not an evil one.
Circumstances reversed.
Also she ditched the Ball.
Dragon Master ne Dragon Mistress.
If her full name is Cinderella that denotes transformation and an evil step family.
Gosh.
She does have a stepmother.
But not an evil one.
Circumstances reversed.
Also she ditched the Ball.
I'm actually not liking the fight choreography in this show. Too much relatively slow wire work. Guess I'd just gotten used to the style used in Arrow, where they tend to do two or three kicks or strikes in the time we see one in this show.
It'll be interesting to see how Pat explains Courtney's injuries to her mother. Car accident while trying to learn how to drive?
Pat did say that he should probably tell her everything, so maybe he'll follow through on that next week. If this is like other Berlanti shows, we can expect more and more people to discover Stargirl's identity as the series goes on.
Yeah I got to admit that's one thing I like about the show, the teenage characters are actually acting like stupid teenagers.
If Doomsday Clock continuity sticks, Johnny Thunder will be the new Thunderbolt going forward--Probably still a merged entity but we don't know that much yet.
I agree with your earlier assessment of people to a certain extent. The thing is that whether you are a girl or a guy when you're a teenager (and with adults to a lesser extent) chances are if you share incriminating information with a person you are dating, it is going to get out. It is not about Yolanda's morality--but she is the victim in the end.
As for her family, they are a very much traditional Latin family--and culturally Latin families tend to be conservative in values (although that is changing) so it is very realistic that her parents are going to be hard on her. Not saying it is right, but it is totally believable.
It is not "incriminating" that Yolanda has breasts. "Incriminating" means "implicating in an illegal act," from the same root as "criminal." It is not criminal to be female. It is not criminal to undress in private. It is not criminal to make a voluntary, consensual choice to express one's sexuality. The criminal here is Cindy. She committed a crime by stealing Yolanda's and Henry's private messages, and she committed another crime by publicly posting nude photos of a minor. Yolanda is the victim of the crime. By all rights, Cindy should've been the one punished.
And you're still blaming the victim. It's no different from saying "She wouldn't have been raped if she'd dressed more modestly." It's focusing on the wrong person's culpability. The person who victimized her is the one whose actions and choices should be criticized.
Overall, she is the victim (certainly Cindy and Henry aren't), but it's a little complicated... as there is a legal basis for porn charges for sharing nude pictures of yourself...
However, given that Yolanda only shared it with the one person who solicited them in the first place, whereas as I understand it Cindy shared them publicly without Yolanda's consent for malicious reasons, then perhaps both/all three of them should have been punished and Cindy should have had the most serious punishment.
Does that make sense?
Actually there isn't, not in this situation. Keeping in mind that Blue Valley is in Nebraska:
https://jsberrylaw.com/blog/can-you-be-arrested-for-sexting-in-nebraska/
(And more generally, it isn't a crime if it's between consenting adults.)
Further:
Both of these clearly apply to Yolanda's situation; therefore there is no legal basis for accusing her of any crime. Legally, she did nothing wrong.
Also, note this passage:
Again, Cindy is the only one who did anything that would be considered a crime. She shouldn't have gotten away with it. Presumably her father protected her from legal consequences. But we viewers should recognize that Cindy, not Yolanda, is the one who deserves blame.
Basically, there should be an expectation of privacy in personal correspondences. For instance, someone who signs a non-disclosure agreement and would be sued for revealing a trade secret to the public can still freely discuss that trade secret in private e-mails with their employer. There isn't a guarantee of privacy, no, but in the case of a breach, the breacher is the one who should be held to be in the wrong. If you break into someone's account and read their private sexts, that doesn't make them an exhibitionist, it makes you a voyeur.
(Although apparently US law is rather lax about the expectation of privacy in texts, while Canadian law is stricter in protecting it.)
Johnny became/merged with the Thunderbolt back in Johns' JSA run. So it more of a return to previous continuity.
Interesting coincidence that Doomsday Clock is being brought up when I just read it the other day.
I thought it was well-done in a lot of ways, but ultimately too meta and too much of an exercise in continuity-resetting. I mean, being meta was the point, and the original Watchmen was a metacommentary on comics in its own way, but this time it felt more like a lot of it was just bookkeeping and "whoo, the erased characters are back now." It was cool to see Superman put Dr. Manhattan in his place, though I think maybe Jon changed his mind too easily.
The art was a good homage to the original, though. I miss the days when comics pages had more panels. I read some of the preceding storylines on DC Universe, like the Rebirth one-shot and The Button, and they were just so decompressed, with so little content per issue that I just raced through them. This was more satisfying, more meaty.
It just hit me that the acronym for Doomsday Clock is "DC." Talk about meta.
Now I guess I should watch the HBO Watchmen at some point to compare its approach. I doubt there's any way to reconcile the two sequels. (Though I did read Ozymandias's scenes in Doomsday Clock with Jeremy Irons's voice in mind.)
The art was a good homage to the original, though. I miss the days when comics pages had more panels. I read some of the preceding storylines on DC Universe, like the Rebirth one-shot and The Button, and they were just so decompressed, with so little content per issue that I just raced through them. This was more satisfying, more meaty.
It just hit me that the acronym for Doomsday Clock is "DC." Talk about meta.
Now I guess I should watch the HBO Watchmen at some point to compare its approach. I doubt there's any way to reconcile the two sequels. (Though I did read Ozymandias's scenes in Doomsday Clock with Jeremy Irons's voice in mind.)
Fair enough, I was speaking in general terms. I'm pleasantly surprised that Nebraska has a more relaxed, nuanced view.
Given the context provided above, I agree. Even without it, she was still the most guilty.
I'd still say that Yolanda should take it as a "learning point" to be more careful in future, she is the victim here.
That goes without saying. What offends me is that everyone is harping on what she supposedly did wrong and saying nothing about what Henry and Cindy did to her. It's the same societal victim-blaming reflex that makes us talk about what women should've done to avoid being raped rather that what we should do to prevent men from becoming rapists in the first place. We always put the focus on the wrong side.
Setting the word incriminating aside, the fact remains that you are not going to control teen's reactions in situations like this. Yolanda is obviously from a socially conservative family and was embarassed. Everyone's reactions were entirely plausible in these circumstances. Is it right that Yolanda was so hurt by this? Of course not. But it happens IRL.
Again: Why are you only talking about Yolanda and not about Henry and Cindy? What Yolanda supposedly did wrong has been stated dozens of times by this point. Why continue to harp on it over and over and over again? What is the point? Can't we just stipulate to it and start talking about the far greater wrongs committed by Henry and Cindy? "It happens" is NOT an excuse for bullying or sexual assault (which is what Cindy essentially committed against Yolanda by publishing her nude photos without her consent). It shouldn't happen, and it will never change until we stop shrugging it off and confront it.
I think it is a given that what cindy did was wrong...and illegal. What I was reacting to was the statements that Yolanda shouldn't be blamed by her parents and reacting herself to this situation so harshly. Again I completely agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately in real life teens have their social life and self-esteem/self-worth pivot on exactly these types of situations.
Similar threads
- Poll
