Tokenism was at its most glaring and offensive in the use of Supergirl's James Olsen (which I covered in this thread) and the Star Wars sequels' Finn (covered in the Rise of Skywalker thread) both there not because they were a natural part of the story, where their identity--like black males in real life--was part of their world view, function and actions, but for White Hollywood Liberals on their Ivory Throne of "we know better" to make themselves feel they have both "instructed" the world (as if that is their anointed role) and provided a "gift" (in color only) to black audiences, when the very nature of those characters' actual presentation had the opposite effect with innumerable black audiences. We know Liberal acts of tokenism when we see it, and always have, and it comes from those who con themselves (and habitually attempt to con others) into believing they are the most open-minded, progressive ("we know better") people on the face of the planet.
Sorry it's been a few days, but it was a holiday weekend. I was debating not responding, but we have almost a year before a new Supergirl, and I'm guessing there will be plenty of time to talk about just about everything.
Any time a character's race is switched, it's tokenism. I also think it's unintentionally racist because it's sending a message that a person of race X or gender X can't become a major character on their own. It IS possible to make a new character work. Look at John Diggle on Arrow or Chloe Sullivan on Smallville.
I think in the case of Jimmy, as is the case with pretty much every race/gender switch, it's just the writers baiting so they can be fake outraged.
Jimmy is a white male. There's nothing wrong with casting a black actor for a role, but when they race switch, it's not about casting a black actor. It's about pandering and tokenism. I always say--create an original character--you get the same thing and avoid the backlash.
What made it worse with Jimmy is that Brooks, as the character was portrayed, was NOTHING like Jimmy Olsen. In name only. So if they are going to cast a terrific actor like Brooks for this show, why not just do it and give the character another name. Doing THAT would change everything. And if they wanted a legacy character, they should have picked Ron Troupe. Google the character, who has been around like three decades now. Think of what you know about Jimmy. Think of what you read about Troupe. Picture Brooks and the character he played. Who was he?
I have to admit, I slightly agree with you a little bit on Alex. Now, I've been around here enough, gotten into arguments with you specifically enough, that my stance on gay representation is pretty clear, but even I got a bit annoyed with Alex's story arcs. For a while it seemed like every story arc she got was only about her love life, even when all of the other characters were getting stories dealing with other parts of their lives. I think it has gotten a lot better the couple seasons, with her conflicts with that one Colonel something that was in charge of the DEO and now her leaving the DEO this season. Even though the character of Kelly has been kind of bland, they have managed to work that relationship into other parts of the show a bit better than some of her earlier ones.
Thank you for that. It's NOT that Alex was gay. It's more the fact that they made it her whole character. It's too much. And why is it that whenever two gay people meet, they HAVE to hook up? Perfect example.
"Hi, I'm Sarah, the gay character on Arrow and Legends."
"Hi, I'm Alex, the gay character on Supergirl. Nice to meet you in this crossover. Let's make out."
What?
It's the crossover. Nazi evil people are doing nazi evil things.
Alex was so poorly written about the only thing they DIDN'T do was tattoo "I'm gay" on her forehead and having her wear a shirt that said the same thing.
That's not inclusive diversity. That's just an over the top dare to challenge it so they can be offended. And that is NOT entertainment.
The worst part is that they had an established gay character to choose from in Maggie Sawyer. Rather than make Alex gay, they should have cast Maggie from Season 1, not as a character there to show the world she's gay, but as a great police officer who is incredible at her job who just HAPPENS to be gay. THAT is far more inclusive than Alex on this show.
And does Kelly have any real purpose on the show other than to be Alex's latest?
On a slightly related now, not so much orientation but more of a PC thing, why does Kelly have to become a superhero too? Why does it seem like every new person is like, "hi, nice to meet you. Give me a costume and I will magically be able to fight."
A suggestion, if I may (which you can obviously take or leave): I think it would be helpful if you would avoid buzzwords like "SJW" and "woke." To a lot of us, those are "fighting words," because they're deliberately dismissive and hostile toward principles we consider important. To your credit, you're clearly capable of and receptive to more thoughtful and less antagonistic discussion.
I get that, but understand--this is what the writers do. They DO consider things like SJW and wokeness a badge of honor. Whether we do agree to disagree on the usage of these terms or not, remember, it was IN the description of Batwoman. They cast Rachel Maddow.
Think about this for a bit--let's say the writers consider themselves as their characters--SJW/woke. From my point of view, that completely ruined Supergirl. It also killed Star Wars and Doctor Who.
On the latter, let's pretend they cast a white male instead of Jodie. Even if that happened, if they used the exact same scripts (with minor adjustments because no gender switch), the last two seasons are just as obnoxious. It is BEYOND frustrating to have people writing stories that demonize all conservative views, mischaracterize them to fit THEIR definition and narrative, and be completely wrong.
I really think that on this board too, that happens, and I'm HOPING to change that.
The best thing that could ever happen in Hollywood would be for shows to bring on conservative writers to balance the extremism that exists today. Or at least have some shows that are more marketed toward conservatives and yes, that includes CW DC shows.
Let's compare the original Star Trek. Uhura and Sulu were groundbreaking characters. Uhura was a black woman on the ship serving side by side with white male officers. She wasn't in command though she was a valued senior officer. Sulu--same idea and I think he did sit in the captain's chair a couple of times. She wasn't a maid, he wasn't doing laundry and talking in a stereotypical accent.
But the writers didn't throw it in the audience's faces. Uhura had her African culture, but how often did it really matter? Was there ever a MAJOR plot point regarding either's ethnicity? A scene here and there sure, but not a big deal in the overall scheme of things.
Everything fit, and it was entertaining.
