Spoilers Supergirl - Season 1

[USS Triumphant]

Melissa doesn't have the, er... chops... to play Power Girl.

Daisy Ridley doesn't have the "chops" to play Laura Croft, either, but that seems like it may soon be a thing.

I've noticed a trend lately, and I actually think Hollywood is body shaming busty actresses, whether they mean to or not. I understand wanting to avoid sexist and juvenile "all womenz with big breasteses" casting, but giving indications that there is NO place for a busty (super)heroine, like they seem to be doing lately, is close to being just as bad. And yes, I know - the general thought is that busty women actually have an unfair advantage, but is this true? I mean, yes, if they *want* to be valued for their body and find advantage in people acting like idiots around them, then okay, but what if they want to be valued for their character or their mind? It seems like when it comes to that, they're discriminated against.

(Yeah - I know... I'm an SJW for busty women. How enlightened of me. But jokes aside, there's a real issue there, because they can't help it any more than very slim women can - and a lot of people don't realize the problems that very busty women face. Back problems, finding clothes that fit right, etc.)

 

[Christopher]

I've noticed a trend lately, and I actually think Hollywood is body shaming busty actresses, whether they mean to or not. I understand wanting to avoid sexist and juvenile "all womenz with big breasteses" casting, but giving indications that there is NO place for a busty (super)heroine, like they seem to be doing lately, is close to being just as bad. And yes, I know - the general thought is that busty women actually have an unfair advantage, but is this true? I mean, yes, if they *want* to be valued for their body and find advantage in people acting like idiots around them, then okay, but what if they want to be valued for their character or their mind? It seems like when it comes to that, they're discriminated against.

I agree. No woman deserves to be shamed or stereotyped for a physical attribute, no matter what that attribute is.

But I'm not sure that's really a factor in the casting of Lara Croft. True, to the general public, Croft is mainly known for her bust size, but there's more to the character than that. And movie casting tends to be based on more than just physical attributes, which is why Hugh Jackman is a foot taller than Wolverine, for example. Angelina Jolie and Daisy Ridley both match Lara Croft in general facial type, hair, and nationality, and both are prominent actresses who'd be box-office draws. So they're good choices for the role in many respects, even if they lack that one attribute.

 

[DigificWriter]

Regarding the Daisy Ridley/Lara Croft thing, I think her being in strong contention for the role is an indicator that they're looking towards the Square Enix reboot series as inspiration for her physical look rather than the original iteration of the character, so it's not about "body shaming", but instead looking at one specific version of the character.

Regarding Power Girl, it's never made sense that she was so much more well-endowed than her Earth-1 doppelganger, and in a day and age when people whine about the smallest things going unexplained, introducing her would open up a can of worms that would be better off untouched, not only because it would require some "technobabble" to account for the dramatic difference in body type, but also because you'd inevitably have people complaining about sexism.

 

[Forbin]

Jennifer Connely had a breast reduction so she would be taken more seriously (one of the greatest crimes of the ages, IMHO), but I don't think it got her any more roles than being hot as fresh lava did.

 

[Forbin]

Regarding the Daisy Ridley/Lara Croft thing, I think her being in strong contention for the role is an indicator that they're looking towards the Square Enix reboot series as inspiration for her physical look rather than the original iteration of the character, so it's not about "body shaming", but instead looking at one specific version of the character.

Regarding Power Girl, it's never made sense that she was so much more well-endowed than her Earth-1 doppelganger, and in a day and age when people whine about the smallest things going unexplained, introducing her would open up a can of worms that would be better off untouched, not only because it would require some "technobabble" to account for the dramatic difference in body type, but also because you'd inevitably have people complaining about sexism.

But isn't half the fun of Power Girl all the wise cracks and references to her boobage?

 

[Admiral2]

Regarding Power Girl, it's never made sense that she was so much more well-endowed than her Earth-1 doppelganger,

It wasn't supposed to make sense. It was a practical joke by Wally Wood. He wanted to see how big a bust he could get away with giving her before DC's editors put the kibosh on it. Successive artists have just followed in his pencil strokes.

 

[Christopher]

Regarding Power Girl, it's never made sense that she was so much more well-endowed than her Earth-1 doppelganger...

The original idea was that she was a few years older than Supergirl and thus more fully developed. That doesn't fit so well with later interpretations, but there are factors other than genetics that can affect body development, like hormones, diet, etc. (I suppose it'd be pretty difficult for a Kryptonian on Earth to get breast enlargement or reduction surgery.) If Power Girl's levels of the Kryptonian equivalent of estrogen had been higher during puberty, say, she could've ended up with a larger bust than Supergirl.

and in a day and age when people whine about the smallest things going unexplained, introducing her would open up a can of worms that would be better off untouched, not only because it would require some "technobabble" to account for the dramatic difference in body type, but also because you'd inevitably have people complaining about sexism.

Again, though, just because fandom and pop culture define Power Girl strictly in terms of her bust, that doesn't mean it's right to assume that any portrayal of the character is required to center on that alone. If Lara Croft doesn't have to be played by a busty actress, neither does Power Girl. Sure, the fanboys who like staring at big boobs will complain, but that shouldn't be a dealbreaker any more than the complaints about James Olsen not being white. Characters are about more than their superficial visual attributes.

 

[Admiral2]

I guess we're determined to overthink this as well.

Explaining Power Girl's physique as compared to Supergirl's is this easy:

Superman had two parents.

Supergirl is the daughter of his mother's sister.

So make Power Girl the daughter of his father's sibling.

Next problem!

 

[USS Triumphant]

Characters are about more than their superficial visual attributes.

They are, and there would be nothing wrong with a black Power Girl, for example. But when a character already has certain traits, and then you start selecting specifically *against* those traits, you're indicating that there is something wrong with them. This isn't black Power Girl at that point - it's "anything except white" Power Girl, which is a decidedly different thing.

 

[davejames]

Personally the idea that breast size is considered one of the "defining traits" or characteristics of a Lara Croft or Power Girl just seems silly as hell to me.

I'm fine with all different sizes in real life, so it doesn't bother me one way or the other what size the actress's breasts are in a movie either.

 

[Christopher]

But when a character already has certain traits, and then you start selecting specifically *against* those traits, you're indicating that there is something wrong with them.

Who said anything about selecting specifically against them? Nobody's saying that, as far as I can tell. We're just saying that it's not mandatory for a character to be played by an actor who matches them in every physical particular. If the best actress to play Lara Croft happened to be large-breasted, or if the best actor to play Wolverine happened to be 5'3" and hirsute, or if the best actress to play Mary Jane Watson were a natural redhead, great. Nothing wrong with that. But if they lack that one attribute but are the best choice in other respects, then it would be stupid to dump them and go for a less talented or suitable performer who did have that one single trait.

The perception of popular culture and of juvenile fanboy morons is that Power Girl's defining trait is a big bust. But the fact is that Power Girl's primary defining trait (post-Crisis continuity aside) is that she's an alternate-universe Supergirl. That's far more important if you're actually, sincerely trying to tell a story about her, rather than just making dumb sexist jokes on the Internet. So if that means you cast Melissa Benoist as Power Girl, fine. That's what would fit the character and the story.

 

[DigificWriter]

From my perspective, the fact that Power Girl is defined by her physical endowments in many people's minds is the primary reason why I don't think she should be used, because you either give the "fanboys" what they expect and get accused of sexism and open yourselves up to whining about her being so different from her exact doppelganger by the "non-fanboys", or you don't and you get people whining because you didn't.

Having said that, though, the only way I'd accept them using the character is if they cast former professional wrestler Beth Kocianski (Beth Phoenix) in the role, since then they could get away with being true to the character without any of the things I just mentioned.

 

[Admiral2]

Who said anything about selecting specifically against them? Nobody's saying that, as far as I can tell. We're just saying that it's not mandatory for a character to be played by an actor who matches them in every physical particular. If the best actress to play Lara Croft happened to be large-breasted, or if the best actor to play Wolverine happened to be 5'3" and hirsute, or if the best actress to play Mary Jane Watson were a natural redhead, great. Nothing wrong with that. But if they lack that one attribute but are the best choice in other respects, then it would be stupid to dump them and go for a less talented or suitable performer who did have that one single trait.

But to go out of your way to cast somebody who has none of the traits is equally as stupid, because at that point why are you bothering with an adaptation?

Of course Power Girl's bust size is not her only defining trait, but it is definitely one of them, and it has been since the character first appeared in comics, and nobody in comics or animation has bothered to change that trait much over time. If the character appears on the show, there's nothing wrong with including that trait when making your casting choice...or are you saying there's no such thing as a woman with big boobs who can act?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Daisy Ridley doesn't have the "chops" to play Laura Croft, either, but that seems like it may soon be a thing.

Typical Hollywood revisionist casting. Ridley is the opposite of the character, not only in the discussed body dissimilarities, but in the appearance of her face. Ridley's choppers are anything other than photogenic, and certainly does not resemble the character.

I've noticed a trend lately, and I actually think Hollywood is body shaming busty actresses, whether they mean to or not.

They mean to. Hollywood has been justifiably accused of casting or creating plots that reflect their insecure issues of appearance or culture, then tries to sell that to the masses.

 

[Starscream2112]

So, CBS announced renewals for 11 shows, but "Supergirl" is not among them.

Source: ComicBookResources

I'd be surprised if they'd actually cancel the show, though. TV by the Numbers has the show still listed as "likely to be renewed by May 2016" going by the last episode.

Maybe SG

This is how it works.

(If) Supergirl is cancelled.

The "character" joins the Legends of Tomorrow cast and makes out with Brainiac 5.

Or...

Melissa plays Power Girl on the CW until the CW gets the rights for Supergirl, and then they have an identical cousins show (Patty Duke? Anyone? Is this thing on?) where they fight crime every week while trying not to make out whenever they forget that they have identical DNA.

However, if Supergirl is renewed...

Spinoff.

Or they could move Supergirl to CBS All Access.

 

[davejames]

Eh, the only reason I wouldn't want Daisy Ridley to play Lara Croft is because I think she deserves a lot better than to be cast in a crappy videogame adaptation.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Eh, the only reason I wouldn't want Daisy Ridley to play Lara Croft is because I think she deserves a lot better than to be cast in a crappy videogame adaptation.

I agree. I think she is a fantastic actress, and I hate that her career route would veer that way, but in the end it is her decision and if she chooses to take the role I respect that decision.

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

Soooooo anyways back to Supergirl...

Looking forward to tonight's episode. Never thought I'd be more excited for the Flash/Supergirl crossover than BvS.

 

[Arrrrgggh]

Of course Power Girl's bust size is not her only defining trait, but it is definitely one of them, and it has been since the character first appeared in comics, and nobody in comics or animation has bothered to change that trait much over time. If the character appears on the show, there's nothing wrong with including that trait when making your casting choice...or are you saying there's no such thing as a woman with big boobs who can act?

There's literally multiple stories revolving around it, too. It's not just an artistic decision, certainly not at this point. It's very much a defining character trait, and not just because of her costume.

 

[Christopher]

Looking forward to tonight's episode. Never thought I'd be more excited for the Flash/Supergirl crossover than BvS.

I do have to wonder about the timing, the two coming out within a week of each other. Maybe Warner Bros. sees it as cross-promotion or something, but it almost feels like Berlanti & co. are offering a counterargument to Snyder & co.