Spoilers Supergirl - Season 1

[Morpheus 02]

I think the reason why there is no Superman is because of a few reasons:
1) budget - this needs money for promo and effects and the right actor
2) stabilization - they need to make sure the series can work on its own
3) movie drama - I honestly do believe there's an embargo. DC is SO un-unified when it comes to its properties

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Supergirl ratings drop again.

The April 11 episode pulled 6.118 viewers (millions), down from the 7.166 from the Flash crossover.

CBS’ “Supergirl” had the steepest drop of the night, falling 0.4 vs. its “Flash” crossover two weeks ago and finishing with a 1.3.

So, the Flash crossover did not give the series the desired ratings spike heading toward the season finale. In fact, the 2/29 & 3/14 ratings were slightly higher than "Myriad,", which again, should have benefited from the marketing push for the crossover, and series in general. Noted two weeks ago, it was senseless to lose whatever momentum the series picked up from the crossover, and with this type of series trying to build tension with the final story of the season, its not good (obviously) for audiences to ignore those finale possibilities and pull back again.

3) movie drama - I honestly do believe there's an embargo. DC is SO un-unified when it comes to its properties

I believe that is the key reason. Unless an actor has been cast to be a full on Superman for the finale (and in this culture of media leaks, no such information has been presented), the biggest DC brand (arguably tied with Batman) is meant for the movies. This is not Marvel, where Netflix, ABC and the movie productions are a unified world.

While the Flash will appear in the movies at the same time a TV version exists, the reminder that its a different actor with an entirely different world strengthens the idea that what is in the movies stays in the movies.

 

[Forbin]

This series stands up entirely on the charm of its lead actors. it sure doesn't do so good on common sense and plot. I still enjoy it a great deal, but I shake my head a lot.

 

[DigificWriter]

If there were an embargo on certain characters applied to Supergirl, we would know about it. The fact that absolutely nothing whatsoever has been said regarding such an embargo should make it pretty obvious that no such embargo exists.... especially since we have actually seen certain individuals involved with the series make statements that are in direct contradiction to the idea that an embargo exists even if said statements did not directly address the subject of an embargo.

We also have direct evidence that contradicts the idea of a universal embargo regarding "high-profile" characters that have nothing to do with either Superman or this show (Gotham's licensing agreement and their ability to use anything and everything associated with the Batman property, including Batman himself).

 

[dahj]

If there were an embargo on certain characters applied to Supergirl, we would know about it.

It's kinda well known that DC doesn't want Batman or Superman on a TV budget, especially now when DCEU is getting into full swing.

 

[davejames]

Then it's a STUPID choice! If they're going to keep putting Supergirl up against Superman's rogue's gallery then it just makes freaking common sense that Superman would actually show up to help at some point! If they refuse to do that, then freaking get Supergirl her own villains!

Except that (like it or not) most of these villains have been reimagined by the show as Supergirl's rogues now, so that effectively takes Superman out of the equation.

One of the reasons I haven't followed this show is the lack of Kal-El. Don't care about Superman, but I wanted to see some moments between her and Kal. She didn't grow up here like Kal did and it would've been nice to see him help her adjust to Earth life as a mentor. Just letting her try to figure out how to use her powers without any help or guidance is stupid and irresponsible.

Yeah that I do kinda agree with. As much as I think the show works perfectly fine without him, I have always enjoyed watching Superman and Supergirl interact (and sometimes butt heads) in the comics or in the various animated series, and think it's a shame we aren't able to see that mentor relationship on this show.

Other than a couple very brief IM chats, you get the impression the two have barely interacted at all since Superman dropped her off with the Danvers many years ago, which just seems odd.

So, the Flash crossover did not give the series the desired ratings spike heading toward the season finale. In fact, the 2/29 & 3/14 ratings were slightly higher than "Myriad,", which again, should have benefited from the marketing push for the crossover, and series in general. Noted two weeks ago, it was senseless to lose whatever momentum the series picked up from the crossover, and with this type of series trying to build tension with the final story of the season, its not good (obviously) for audiences to ignore those finale possibilities and pull back again..

I hate to say it, but even without the week off I think the ratings probably would have dropped back down to 1.3. The show still has a pretty solid audience of 2.0 (once you factor in all the delayed viewing), but clearly most people prefer to watch it later in the week now instead of that night.

The question is just whether that's something CBS will be happy enough with...

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

We also have direct evidence that contradicts the idea of a universal embargo regarding "high-profile" characters that have nothing to do with either Superman or this show (Gotham's licensing agreement and their ability to use anything and everything associated with the Batman property, including Batman himself).

THE biggest characters/brands at DC/WB are Superman and Batman. Have you seen Batman on Gotham? Back in August of 2015, Ben McKenzie said:

"In the very last frame of the very last scene of the very last episode of the very last season of Gotham, whenever that turns out to be, that's when we'll see Bruce Wayne put on the cape and cowl,"

Which means Batman is not meant to be a full-on character in the DC TV universe. Batman is a movie property, and up to this moment, the same applies to the other biggest DC brand--Superman. That's why Supergirl has used silhouettes, text messages and long distance CG figures, but no full on appearance. Right now, if its not Henry Cavill, its not happening, and have you--or anyone else--heard of Cavill appearing on a low-rated TV series, when he's part of the main DC adaptations on the big screen?

It's kinda well known that DC doesn't want Batman or Superman on a TV budget, especially now when DCEU is getting into full swing.

Exactly.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Adam West is more popular than any other (live action) Batman.

Millions of nerds stayed home, because Michael Keaton and Chrisitan Bale are wannabe fan fiction.

 

[Admiral2]

The Kara Zor-El version of Supergirl doesn't actually HAVE very many of her own villains. She's a character that is intrinsically linked to her cousin in pretty much every respect.

Which makes her a sidekick, not someone who should be headlining her own TV series.

And I disagree that using villains associated with the "Super-Family" automatically means that you're obligated to utilize every single heroic member of said "family".

But you have to reconsider that position when the one member of the family that's supposed to be the star of series is surrounded by characters that all call back to the FIRST member of the family.

It isn't just the villains! Her boyfriend is her cousin's best pal. Her secret agent boss is Lois Lane's sister. Her Catco boss is Lois Lane's reporter rival. Her best guy friend is the son of one of Superman's villains. If it weren't for her adoptive family and Martian Manhunter there would be nothing to suggest this show is anything but a series about Superman in blond drag.

The Kara Zor-El version of Supergirl can fight bad guys more commonly associated with her cousin without having to have her cousin show up. Claiming otherwise is drawing a line in the sand that just isn't realistic and flies in the face of practicality.

Horseshit. Fighting one or two of his villains is one thing. Fighting nothing but his villains week after week and not have him show up just once and ask what the hell's going on is what's unrealistic. Dude, she fought Maxima in the first minutes of the episode! There is absolutely no goddamn reason for a superstrong alien princess with the hots for SuperMAN to be anywhere near a show about his distaff cousin! The only reason to have her is because past Astra and Zon the writers are too friggin' lazy to come up with something new!

By your notion, every single comic series that has ever been written featuring Supergirl automatically had to involve Superman simply because they share a power set and a Rogues gallery. It just doesn't work that way, nor should it have to.

And by your notion, it would be perfectly all right if She-Hulk never faced any other villains besides Abomination, Leader and General Thunderbolt Ross because She-Hulk doesn't need her own villains to be an interesting character. Thankfully, as you say, shit doesn't work that way either.

We're talking about two things here: creativity and identity. Superhero identities are partially established by the unique villains they face. Gorilla Grodd is a Flash villain. Cheetah is a Wonder Woman villain. Sinestro is a Green Lantern villain. Supergirl's identity as a unique character suffers from the fact that she has no similar defining villain - besides Astra, who's now dead. You say "she doesn't have a rogues gallery" like it's no big deal. It is a big deal. It affects the way you think of the character when she's surrounded almost exclusively by a different character's friends and foes.

And what's worse, it's obvious that's what the creators want. It's like they wanted to do a Superman series but couldn't for some reason, so they just said "We'll just use Supergirl as his avatar." That's the worst part of the series. All the Superman referencing is creatively bankrupt, and actually does Supergirl a disservice in storytelling terms.

 

[SAndrews10]

My guess is Superman dies, and they have to rescue his clone from Cadmus. That leads into the 12 year old actor that played Clark in her dream sequence being a recurring character next season as was mentioned earlier in the casting sides.

 

[JD]

I haven't really had a big problem with the way they've approached Superman on the show, but I do think having him around and active is a bit of a mistake. I can see why they would want to have him be a part of this world, but I think they should have found a way to permanently remove him from the equation in the pilot. It would have put an end to all of this discussions about why he isn't showing up or why Supergirl is fighting his villains. It also would have given her a much more compelling reason to step up and become Supergirl.

 

[davejames]

We're talking about two things here: creativity and identity. Superhero identities are partially established by the unique villains they face. Gorilla Grodd is a Flash villain. Cheetah is a Wonder Woman villain. Sinestro is a Green Lantern villain. Supergirl's identity as a unique character suffers from the fact that she has no similar defining villain - besides Astra, who's now dead. You say "she doesn't have a rogues gallery" like it's no big deal. It is a big deal. It affects the way you think of the character when she's surrounded almost exclusively by a different character's friends and foes.

And what's worse, it's obvious that's what the creators want. It's like they wanted to do a Superman series but couldn't for some reason, so they just said "We'll just use Supergirl as his avatar." That's the worst part of the series. All the Superman referencing is creatively bankrupt, and actually does Supergirl a disservice in storytelling terms.

Huh. For me what's always made characters like Batman or Superman or Flash so memorable... are the Batman, Superman and Flash characters themselves. It's never much mattered to me which particular supervillain they happen to be facing off with. And in fact I usually get more of a thrill watching them perform everyday rescues and save people in crashing planes or runaway trains or what have you.

And I also think this Supergirl series has done a pretty good job making the world her own and building up a decent rogues gallery for her (in Livewire, Bizarro Girl, Banshee, Maxwell Lord, etc). Who cares if she doesn't have that one "defining" villain to fight.

And we've also seen a stronger focus on women's issues and girl power than we've seen in any other series (as some on here never tire of complaining about), so clearly they're trying to do a lot more here than just make a Superman show without using Superman.

 

[Admiral2]

Huh. For me what's always made characters like Batman or Superman or Flash so memorable... are the Batman, Superman and Flash characters themselves. It's never much mattered to me which particular supervillain they happen to be facing off with. And in fact I usually get more of a thrill watching them perform everyday rescues and save people in crashing planes or runaway trains or what have you.

You may think that, but their individual villains add to their uniqueness, whether you realize it or not. How long do you think Batman would have lasted if his only adversaries were pickpockets and muggers? Eventually, batman needs to vanquish a Joker or a Riddler to add to his mythology. Flash is just a guy who runs fast. His series would be incredibly boring if all he did was chase after litterers. Doomsday exists because Superman needs to face a bigger challenge than the wife beater he tossed into a wall in the first Action Comics.

Villains matter, and good recurring villains help define the heroes they challenge, and the more they recur, the more their attempts to challenge other heroes seem off.

And I also think this Supergirl series has done a pretty good job making the world her own

Not if people keep asking to see Superman. A "pretty good job" would mean you'd watch the show and think "Superman who?"

and building up a decent rogues gallery for her (in Livewire, Bizarro Girl, Banshee, Maxwell Lord, etc). Who cares if she doesn't have that one "defining" villain to fight.

Comics fans who know the origins of Livewire, Bizarro, Banshee and Maxwell Lord have jack to do with Supergirl.

And we've also seen a stronger focus on women's issues and girl power than we've seen in any other series (as some on here never tire of complaining about), so clearly they're trying to do a lot more here than just make a Superman show without using Superman.

But not much more. Take away that girl power aspect and again, all you have is Superman in blond drag.

 

[Commander Richard]

I never expected to see Superman on the show. He's movie property. I'd be surprised if he did show up.

Just wait until Barry meets Power Girl on his Earth.

Hopefully.

Spoiler

Is there a Kara Danvers on Earth-1? Could we meet her on The Flash? — Timothy
Yes, but … “Any Kara that exists on Earth 1 would also have to have been an alien,” says EP Andrew Kreisberg. “It can’t just be Kara Danvers from Poughkeepsie.” Does that mean she could be a potential super (or maybe a power) girl on his Earth, too? “Sure, different costume, but sure,” Kreisberg adds.

Source

I was actually almost hoping that Cat would turn out to be unaffected because she was just too self-absorbed and oblivious for anything to penetrate her mind. But that would've been a bit too silly.

That would have been funny.

Hold on, that's a problem, since Cat Grant has already namedropped both Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. So is Lynda Carter's character the president instead of Barack Obama, with the rest of the election being pretty much the same as (what we laughingly call) reality? Will she only be in office until next January 20? That would kind of preclude it being a recurring role.

I'm not too keen on them name-dropping real celebrities on these shows.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It isn't just the villains! Her boyfriend is her cousin's best pal. Her secret agent boss is Lois Lane's sister. Her Catco boss is Lois Lane's reporter rival. Her best guy friend is the son of one of Superman's villains. If it weren't for her adoptive family and Martian Manhunter there would be nothing to suggest this show is anything but a series about Superman in blond drag.

Accurate, but thanks to Berlanti's social agenda, a character with hardly any legacy of her own was brought to TV, but as i've said before, the "S" shield--one of the most recognized brand symbols in the world--is not enough to make up for what the source--or Berlanti's agenda--is lacking.

The only reason to have her is because past Astra and Zon the writers are too friggin' lazy to come up with something new!

Lazy or creatively incapable of creating something new.

We're talking about two things here: creativity and identity. Superhero identities are partially established by the unique villains they face. Gorilla Grodd is a Flash villain. Cheetah is a Wonder Woman villain. Sinestro is a Green Lantern villain. Supergirl's identity as a unique character suffers from the fact that she has no similar defining villain - besides Astra, who's now dead. You say "she doesn't have a rogues gallery" like it's no big deal. It is a big deal. It affects the way you think of the character when she's surrounded almost exclusively by a different character's friends and foes.

An undeniable truth; that's the way superhero comics have been structured for decades--

• In the 1940s, Timely's Captain America was a wartime symbol of patriotism. but he was defined by his consistent adversary the Red Skull. When revived in the 60s, his character was further defined in concert with Baron Zemo, the revived Red Skull and organizations such as A.I.M & Hydra.
• Batman--well known rogue's galley that shaped the character's identity.
• Captain Marvel had Mr. Mind, Dr. Sivana & Captain Nazi.
• Spider-Man's identity & history is as inseparable from villains such as the Green Goblin, Kingpin, Dr. Octopus & The Jackal as his own alter ego.

There's no denying how the greatest superheroes were in part developed by the great opposite--their constant villains.

And what's worse, it's obvious that's what the creators want. It's like they wanted to do a Superman series but couldn't for some reason, so they just said "We'll just use Supergirl as his avatar." That's the worst part of the series. All the Superman referencing is creatively bankrupt, and actually does Supergirl a disservice in storytelling terms.

Considering the politics of the series, I do not think the showrunners had any interest in anything other than a female superhero series of character that was available (i.e. not locked in for the movie universe), without much consideration for a structured world based on the character source.

And I also think this Supergirl series has done a pretty good job making the world her own and building up a decent rogues gallery for her (in Livewire, Bizarro Girl, Banshee, Maxwell Lord, etc). Who cares if she doesn't have that one "defining" villain to fight.

Defining villains help shape the hero identity, as listed in this post.

And we've also seen a stronger focus on women's issues and girl power than we've seen in any other series (as some on here never tire of complaining about), so clearly they're trying to do a lot more here than just make a Superman show without using Superman.

Then produce a series about a young woman set in the real world, where it will communicate its agenda in terms the audience will understand, as it occurs in the world they actually live in. This is not the original Star Trek, where a far off setting was necessary to communicate issues that then-current TV was not comfortable in addressing. Turning Supergirl into a man-targeting soapbox (as a substitute for girl power) does nothing for a show about a super-powered character in a cape--allegedly the first focus of such a series.

 

[Christopher]

I haven't really had a big problem with the way they've approached Superman on the show, but I do think having him around and active is a bit of a mistake. I can see why they would want to have him be a part of this world, but I think they should have found a way to permanently remove him from the equation in the pilot. It would have put an end to all of this discussions about why he isn't showing up or why Supergirl is fighting his villains. It also would have given her a much more compelling reason to step up and become Supergirl.

I disagree emphatically. It would've basically implied that a female hero wouldn't be worth turning to unless her male equivalent were unavailable -- that if the male hero existed at all, he would automatically and inevitably overshadow a female hero. It would perpetuate sexist preconceptions, and it would undermine her as a character if it were suggested that she was only valuable as a substitute for Superman. So it's very important that Superman is, in fact, alive and well and yet Supergirl is still able to be an independent and noteworthy hero in her own right.

And the show has done a good job establishing reasons why they follow their own separate paths most of the time. She was the older cousin on Krypton, the one sent to protect him, so she wouldn't default to seeking his help. They both have their own cities to protect, and she feels she can't be effective and trusted by the people if she can't handle that job without Superman's help. Also, Superman preferentially works alone, and he doesn't work with the government, while Supergirl has DEO ties.

Besides, they didn't have to kill off Steve Austin to give Jaime Sommers her own series. They didn't have to kill off Hercules to give Xena her own series. For that matter, they didn't have to kill off Buffy to give Angel his own series. So why should this be any different?

Sure, audiences are going to ask questions about why Superman isn't around, but audiences always ask questions, and some of them are worthwhile questions and others are just silly and contentious. You can't base your creative decisions on worrying about what bees the audience will get in its bonnet. That would be writing defensively, and as Cat Grant wisely reminded us, it's unhealthy to let your choices in life be governed by fear.

 

[Ovation]

Turning Supergirl into a man-targeting soapbox (as a substitute for girl power) does nothing for a show about a super-powered character in a cape--allegedly the first focus of such a series.

(my emphasis)

That's, well, puzzling. I'm a man (a pasty-white middle-aged one at that) and I've hardly felt "targeted" by the show. Promoting "girl power" is hardly synonymous with "man targeting".

 

[davejames]

Comics fans who know the origins of Livewire, Bizarro, Banshee and Maxwell Lord have jack to do with Supergirl.

Even if every comic book fan out there embraced the show, it would still make up a very small percentage of the audience, so I don't really see how their opinion on the matter really matters all that much.

And in any case, we're not exactly talking about super iconic and well known villains here (other than perhaps Bizarro), so if the show wants to make them Supergirl's own, then I really don't see what the big deal is. It is set in the same world after all.

That's, well, puzzling. I'm a man (a pasty-white middle-aged one at that) and I've hardly felt "targeted" by the show. Promoting "girl power" is hardly synonymous with "man targeting".

Don't you know, apparently it's considered "targeting" or an "agenda" when you simply point out the very real inequality that exists in the world and the fact that (gasp) white men have more power and influence than all other groups.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I think it would be better to say that it's branded "girl power" aimed for white upper middle class, sort of in the same way Star Trek was "culturally diverse."

I have to agree with what I said about a year ago that the should have been gender-bent Superman from the get-go, with Supes/Kal/Clark completely left out of it. For all intents and purposes, that's what it is anyway and all these looming "doubts" (for lack of a better word) would have been omitted. I'm still confused why they felt it necessary to have him in-universe to begin with, except to juxtapose with Kara--which sort of defeats the intent of the show. Sometimes I wonder if there's a WWKD bumper sticker on the inside of her cape.

. Then, of course, it would make the show so much more easier to merge into the CW verse, which, seems all but inevitable now.

 

[Christopher]

(my emphasis)

That's, well, puzzling. I'm a man (a pasty-white middle-aged one at that) and I've hardly felt "targeted" by the show. Promoting "girl power" is hardly synonymous with "man targeting".

Indeed. It's naive to think that one group can only thrive at the expense of others. That's not the way it actually works. The motto of the House of El says it all: Stronger Together. Promoting women benefits men too. And undermining women hurts men. We're partners, not enemies.