Spoilers Supergirl - Season 5

[TREK_GOD_1]

Crisis is the perfect time to set some corrections, but I doubt they will.

I tend to agree that one should place too much hope on any major general series / changes where the A-list characters are concerned. In other words, the fantastic, meaningful drama that was born of (for one thing) the idea of sacrifice as seen in the original COIE comics will never find its way into the Arrowverse series. It would be a brave, jaw-dropping move if they took the various series in that direction.

This is an interesting take. I can't and won't comment on whether they wrote a black character effectively. But I am certainly in the group that hates seeing casting based solely on race just so a bunch of people can pat themselves on the back about how woke they are, and then get fake outraged when they are called out on their blatant pandering.

One could comfortably say that a large number of Arrowverse viewers do count themselves as very liberal/progressive, yet some of those same people resented the idea of Brooks being cast as Olsen, or never found it grating that of all of the main characters on a show where exploration/expression of identity is of the greatest priority, that James---the one black male--had his identity/development feet cut from under him, left to be little more than tokenized wallpaper instead of a character that represented his real world counterparts with a unique story to tell (one that is experienced from one generation to the next), yet that was of no concern to the showrunners. .

Brooks basically played what should have been Ron Troupe on this show with a James Olsen name.

Interesting.

 

[Marc]

So James hands the camera his dad gave him over to the kid he hired to work at the newspaper he bought.

But hang on, didn't that camera get destroyed during an alien attack?

 

[The Realist]

The camera was indeed badly damaged a few seasons back, and I assumed it was a total loss, but it's easy enough to conclude he had it repaired.

 

[Noname Given]

I was thinking the same thing. Though they could certainly bring him back as a guest star later. Now that he has a real defined identity and purpose.

Calvintown seems so random as Jimmy’s hometown. First time he did not grow up in Metropolis? It was implied in the past he was young when Superman first appeared. Closest place to that name in DC Comics - Calvin City, Home of Golden Age version of the Atom.

It’s still insane that in all these seasons of Jimmy as regular cast member he never had a significant scene with Clark/Superman in his guest appearances.

Could they still get one in the COIE; or is Jimmy (and Mehcad Brookes) effectively fully written out and he's already on whatever projects he lined up?

 

[kirk55555]

I really like the stuff with Martian Manhunter's brother, but everything else is unbelievably annoying. I still really like MM and Kara as characters, but unless something really changes with the Lena plot and the godawful Catco/reporter subplot I'm just going to watch the season until the Crisis crossover and then drop it. Every Sunday I'm super hyped for Batwoman and then just completely dread what comes next, so if it doesn't improve I dson't feel like I need to keep experiencing that past the big crossover.

 

[Kirk Prime]

One could comfortably say that a large number of Arrowverse viewers do count themselves as very liberal/progressive, yet some of those same people resented the idea of Brooks being cast as Olsen, or never found it grating that of all of the main characters on a show where exploration/expression of identity is of the greatest priority, that James---the one black male--had his identity/development feet cut from under him, left to be little more than tokenized wallpaper instead of a character that represented his real world counterparts with a unique story to tell (one that is experienced from one generation to the next), yet that was of no concern to the showrunners.

I don't mind so much that the fans can be progressive--fine. But that's just blatant pandering, and insulting even because it says flat out that a black character can't make it without a writer patting them on the head and changing a white character. It absolutely is patronizing. But why cast a black actor as Jimmy and then not write him as Jimmy? The only issue I had with the character was his name. And again, Ron Troupe fits the bill.

The showrunners don't care about that kind of stuff. They just want to check their boxes.

The news just broke that a Superman series is finally in development. I made a thread for it. I'm cautiously optimistic. Supergirl was phenomenal last year when Lex was on. I think they have a good cast, but they need good writers that won't hurt the character the way the Supergirl writers did.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Windfall comes to mind.

O. That was Emori from the 100.

She looks different without the tattoo.

 

[Tuskin38]

I don't mind so much that the fans can be progressive--fine. But that's just blatant pandering, and insulting even because it says flat out that a black character can't make it without a writer patting them on the head and changing a white character. It absolutely is patronizing. But why cast a black actor as Jimmy and then not write him as Jimmy? The only issue I had with the character was his name. And again, Ron Troupe fits the bill.

The showrunners don't care about that kind of stuff. They just want to check their boxes.

How can a post be so ignorant?

They are not pandering and 'checking boxes'.

 

[Kirk Prime]

How can a post be so ignorant?

They are not pandering and 'checking boxes'.

Of course they are, and calling that out is the exact opposite of ignorant. That's Supergirl's MO. Check those boxes. Pander.

Not seeing that? THAT is ignorant.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Network TV is about selling products to their audience. The demographic acquired by Supergirl opens up a lot of new revenue that other shows don't care about.

The CW are not pandering to women and the lgbtqa+, the CW is after their money, and this is a shakedown.

How can a post be so ignorant?

They are not pandering and 'checking boxes'.

Supergirl is a show designed to represent women, lgbtqa+, African Americans, and other minorities. It's a good thing, but it's also cartoony and heavy handed while trying to be inspirational with obvious metaphors, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Oh...

Count up how many white dudes are in the main cast at the moment, the number is hilariously low.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Network TV is about selling products to their audience. The demographic acquired by Supergirl opens up a lot of new revenue that other shows don't care about.

The CW are not pandering to women and the lgbtqa+, the CW is after their money, and this is a shakedown.

Supergirl is a show designed to represent women, lgbtqa+, African Americans, and other minorities. It's a good thing, but it's also cartoony and heavy handed while trying to be inspirational with obvious metaphors, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Oh...

Count up how many white dudes are in the main cast at the moment, the number is hilariously low.

I know--it's pandering. Also, count up how many people are still watching the show at the moment, and the number is also hilariously low. The ratings have declined big time and I believe that's because of the politics.

Maybe instead of trying to pander to certain groups, they should just focus on making a good TV show. When they do, like they did last year with Lex, the show does much better.

If they are after the revenue, and I get that, but it doesn't make sense if the audience overall declines.

 

[PiotrB]

Count up how many white dudes are in the main cast at the moment, the number is hilariously low.

The only thing that's hilarious is the white dudes counting the representation they have in any TV show or movie.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I know--it's pandering. Also, count up how many people are still watching the show at the moment, and the number is also hilariously low. The ratings have declined big time and I believe that's because of the politics.

Maybe instead of trying to pander to certain groups, they should just focus on making a good TV show. When they do, like they did last year with Lex, the show does much better.

If they are after the revenue, and I get that, but it doesn't make sense if the audience overall declines.

Pandering... I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Pandering is when you go against your own moral code to be nice to a group, for profit.

What's happening here is that the writers are sticking to their principles, supporting groups that they admire and not making any money.

 

[Guy Gardener]

The only thing that's hilarious is the white dudes counting the representation they have in any TV show or movie.

This is just a math question...

Can a person count to zero?

 

[Kirk Prime]

Pandering is to provide gratification for others' desires. It has nothing to do with your own moral code.

These writers' principles require pandering--and checking every box they want so they can smugly pat themselves on the back and say that they did something, whether organic to the concept of the show or not.

The show suffered because of it. But it's interesting how in one post you said network TV is about making money and they were going after a new audience and in the next you say they don't care about making money.

Look, it is what it is. You're right--they do care more about their pandering and box checking than making a good show. That's a shame because they had an amazing show the first couple of seasons.

 

[Guy Gardener]

pander
/ˈpandə/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: pandering

1. gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire or taste or a person with such a desire or taste).
   "newspapers are pandering to people's baser instincts"

This definition suggests that a panderer knows that pandering is bad.

Pandering is to provide gratification for others' desires. It has nothing to do with your own moral code.

These writers' principles require pandering--and checking every box they want so they can smugly pat themselves on the back and say that they did something, whether organic to the concept of the show or not.

The show suffered because of it. But it's interesting how in one post you said network TV is about making money and they were going after a new audience and in the next you say they don't care about making money.

Look, it is what it is. You're right--they do care more about their pandering and box checking than making a good show. That's a shame because they had an amazing show the first couple of seasons.

There's a line between the money types and the creative types, called a producer.

STRATAFICATION.

The writers room does not give a shit about money and the network execs do not give a shit about creativity until the show starts to under perform.

 

[Kirk Prime]

Yeah, according to m-w.com, you're just not accurate here.

Definition of pander
(Entry 1 of 2)

intransitive verb

: to act as a pander especially : to provide gratification for others' desires films that pander to the basest emotions … used his brilliant gifts to pander to popular taste. — Hubert Saal

The writers room does not give a shit about money and the network execs do not give a shit about creativity until the show starts to under perform.

Judging by the declining ratings since they decided to pander and push politics over actual entertainment, seems the show has been underperforming. The show is the lowest rated show on Sunday by far. Last in its timeslot, and only Batwoman competes with how low the ratings are. Not even 1 million viewers.

Just last year, the show averaged 1.67 million viewers, which is terrible. Last episode had 980000.

Batwoman incidentally, is doing worse than Supergirl last year at this time.

 

[DigificWriter]

The show is the lowest rated show on Sunday by far. Last in its timeslot, and only Batwoman competes with how low the ratings are. Not even 1 million viewers.

Just last year, the show averaged 1.67 million viewers, which is terrible. Last episode had 980000.

Batwoman incidentally, is doing worse than Supergirl last year at this time.

Both shows stabilized and gained viewers in the demo this week, and Batwoman also just got a full-season order, so you're pushing baseless conspiracy theories and ranting like a madman.

 

[PiotrB]

Both shows stabilized and gained viewers in the demo this week, and Batwoman also just got a full-season order, so you're pushing baseless conspiracy theories and ranting like a madman.

In addition, the ratings are getting lower and lower year on year and in the case of CW there is no competition with others anyway and these ratings are less important when deciding on the cancellation. Supergirl still has a third rating after The Flash and Batwoman and an international distribution deal with Netflix so the series is safe.

 

[DigificWriter]

In addition, the ratings are getting lower and lower year on year and in the case of CW there is no competition with others anyway and these ratings are less important when deciding on the cancellation. Supergirl still has a third rating after The Flash and Batwoman and an international distribution deal with Netflix so the series is safe.

I think that Netflix's international distribution deal with The CW ended when the overall distribution deal with the channel ended, and only the U.S. distribution terms remain in effect.

I do agree with you, though, that Supergirl is in zero danger of being cancelled.