Spoilers Supergirl - Season 5

[Christopher]

Example: A letter writing campaign by fans saved Star Trek. There's actually no proof of that. Fans infer it, but that's not the same thing. There's no evidence that NBC actually planned to cancel it at the end of the second season, and its "death slot" timeslot might actually be because NBC got a tobacco company to sponsor the show, and tobacco product ads could not be run before 10pm. See? It's not always so simple as B because A.

What I gather is that the reason TOS was bumped to a less ideal time slot was because the producer of Laugh-In insisted on getting the slot that NBC had promised to Roddenberry, and since Laugh-In had bigger ratings, it won the slot.

Also, the thing that got the show renewed was the same thing that gets most struggling shows renewed: an agreement to reduce the budget for the new season by reducing the episode count, having fewer guests and extras, doing less location shooting, etc. You can see the same thing happen with the later seasons of a lot of shows -- for instance, the past two seasons of Agents of SHIELD have been heavily dependent on standing sets and bottle stories.

 

[Maurice]

To my recollection that Laugh-In thing has never been confirmed and we only have Roddenberry's word for it. But if anyone has a more reliable source please remind me.

 

[Christopher]

To my recollection that Laugh-In thing has never been confirmed and we only have Roddenberry's word for it. But if anyone has a more reliable source please remind me.

It seems plausible to me, though. People tend to assume that the reasons for moving Star Trek had to be exclusively about Star Trek, but it didn't exist in a vacuum. Network schedulers have to juggle dozens of different shows that are competing for a finite number of slots, and so any scheduling decision has got to be about weighing multiple shows against each other. So sometimes the reason for one show getting a raw deal is because a different show or shows took priority, rather than because of anything particular to the show itself.

 

[DigificWriter]

I want to feel about the show the way I did before politics overwhelmed the show.

Which was "never", because the show has been steeped in political and social viewpoints - and upfront about addressing them - since the very first frame of the Pilot.

 

[The Realist]

Indeed, I tend to think giving Lois powers fundamentally robs her of what makes her interesting: that she does what she does in-spite of being powerless in a more mundane but no less super heroic fashion.

So very much this. Furthermore, the history of Superman has proven the value of surrounding him with ordinary people (though as "ordinary" people go, someone like Lois is pretty damn remarkable). The character is grounded and enriched in enormously important ways by his relationships with Lois, Jimmy, Perry, the Kents, etc. The fact that he so dearly loves and values these "mortal men" and women is the very essence of the character. Giving Lois superpowers on a permanent basis could not be more misconceived and counterproductive, for both her and Clark (and it's also why I feel that contingent of fans who want Superman to be with Wonder Woman instead of Lois misunderstand what he's all about on the most fundamental level).

The Supergirl TV series unfortunately succumbs at times to the larger Arrowverse formula of wanting to make everyone a superhero, and surrounding Kara with as many costumed folks as possible. Personally, I'd prefer this show and others to feature exactly one superhero (I miss the old days of Adventures of Superman in that regard). But at least Kara still has some (extra)ordinary friends and allies who aren't powered or masked, and who are satisfied with just one identity.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Here’s a more updated version.
View attachment 10546
Still Lois Lane, but it’s not far off Kara’s new suit.

Technically, that version only stuck around for one issue. She was an alternate Lois Lane (or rather a remnant of the universe shifting, it's one of those comic book things that are hard to explain), who was announced as the star of the (then new) Superwoman book, but was killed at the end of #1 in a big twist, as the real star of the book (and, though her book was cancelled a while ago, still current Superwoman) was revealed to be Lana Lang. Her suit, though, also had pants.

 

[RandyS]

Sounds like a medical problem.

My Grandma used to complain of the same thing when she was about the age I am now, so I'm thinking it's genetic.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Here’s a more updated version.
View attachment 10546
Still Lois Lane, but it’s not far off Kara’s new suit.

The "S" is a very appealing design change that would have been cool for the TV costume.

 

[USS Firefly]

The "S" is a very appealing design change that would have been cool for the TV costume.

I agree the suit looks great, Even without the cape

 

[Maurice]

It seems plausible to me, though. People tend to assume that the reasons for moving Star Trek had to be exclusively about Star Trek, but it didn't exist in a vacuum. Network schedulers have to juggle dozens of different shows that are competing for a finite number of slots, and so any scheduling decision has got to be about weighing multiple shows against each other. So sometimes the reason for one show getting a raw deal is because a different show or shows took priority, rather than because of anything particular to the show itself.

Plausible or not, it's not proven. That was the point. I stated it merely as a well-known example of people drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence re Supergirl.

 

[Christopher]

Plausible or not, it's not proven. That was the point. I stated it merely a well-known example of people drawing a conclusion based on insufficient evidence re Supergirl.

Uhh, you were talking about the myth that the letter-writing campaign saved the show. I agree with you that that's a myth. I was talking about the side issue of why the show was moved to Friday nights, and I'm basically making the same point you are: That the usual assumptions about why that happened are probably untrue. People assume that NBC put it there because of some hostility toward Star Trek itself, and I'm saying that the decision might have had nothing to do with Star Trek per se.

 

[Spot261]

Guffaw guffaw guffaw.

Dance me a merry dance @Maurice

 

[Mudd]

My impression has been that "Superwoman's" raison d'etre over time has been as a means for DC to try to maintain trademark on the name.

 

[YLu]

You'd think so, but surprisingly DC in its entire history has only ever published one series titled Superwoman, which lasted 18 issues.

They've had other *characters* by that name here and there, but without having an actual book by that title, I don't think that does anything to maintain trademark.

 

[Gov Kodos]

My impression has been that "Superwoman's" raison d'etre over time has been as a means for DC to try to maintain trademark on the name.

They have Captain Marvel as an example of failure to do that.

 

[Mudd]

The ratings were down the year before too, though that's a theory. However, Sunday is the most watched TV night of the week, so it should have helped. Ultimately, the same people who watched the show before certainly knew the night changed. And if you look at the ratings, the crossover episode, which I believe kicked off everything, had a 0.77 rating--over double the show's average. Of course that was a special event, but the point is, if people have good reason to watch, they do.

I know this show can be better. I want to feel about the show the way I did before politics overwhelmed the show. Maybe some new writers would do the trick. But it's a new season, and I hope that the show moves in a good direction.

There's nothing wrong with the show, and no excuse for continuing to make this fuss as if there is just because you don't like the values the show upholds. Watch something else.

 

[BillJ]

They've had other *characters* by that name here and there, but without having an actual book by that title, I don't think that does anything to maintain trademark.

Pretty sure as long as they are frequently using the character, they can maintain the trademarks on her.

 

[BillJ]

There's nothing wrong with the show, and no excuse for continuing to make this fuss as if there is just because you don't like the values the show upholds. Watch something else.

But then how will we know that white men are being mistreated and marginalized?! Won't someone think of the children!

 

[Mudd]

But then how will we know that white men are being mistreated and marginalized?! Won't someone think of the children!

Well,

1. It doesn't matter;
2. No one cares;
3. It's repetitious;
4. It's a nonsense complaint;
5. It doesn't matter.

The producers are making their show the way they want to. The CW keeps renewing it.

All of that is perfectly good. It causes no problem for any human being.

There are also a lot of shows on TV every day starring white men. You can watch them for free.

 

[Greg Cox]

Pretty sure BillJ was being sarcastic.