Supergirl TV Series is being work on.

[The Old Mixer]

[^GD, beat me to it!]

To clarify the issue somewhat, Carol Danvers was a Captain Marvel supporting character for 9 years before they made her Ms. Marvel...which makes it seem more likely that the naming was a coincidence rather than a deliberate Supergirl homage.

 

[Christopher]

^Good point. I guess people in comics just liked the name Danvers. Maybe they're all fans of Rebecca.

 

[davejames]

Whatever the reason for it, I definitely prefer Kara Danvers over Linda Lee. As others have said, there's no real need for her to have a completely different name for her secret identity when Kara Danvers is already anonymous enough as it is.

 

[Christopher]

^Well, in the comics, I suppose it was fairly well-known that Supergirl's Kryptonian name was Kara Zor-El, just as it was widely known that Superman's was Kal-El. So they'd both have reason to use distinct names in their secret identities. In this version, Supergirl has to avoid being publicly known as Kara Zor-El, because then someone might notice that Kara Danvers looks and sounds a lot like her. (Although she's being rather profligate about sharing her identity, it seems.)

 

[davejames]

The funny thing is, I think Benoist actually looks a lot cuter in her nerdy "disguise" with the glasses and her hair in a bun than she does as Supergirl.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Women carry their their fathers full name.

Men carry the family name after the hyphen.

Lara Lor-Van was kal-El's mother's maiden name.

Women lose their father's name upon marriage.

Hmm?

Does that mean that Lara has no surname, or does she acquire her husband's name on the hind end of her own?

(Things have changed.)

n the New 52 comics' continuity, a 2013 story has Lara give her maiden name as Lara Van-El, implying that a married Kryptonian woman combines her old and new family names, as many women do in present-day Western culture.[3]

 

[theenglish]

Um, I think the majority of people commenting in here right now have seen it. Are you going to call out every one of them as well? Lol

Sure. If it is indeed the case that "the majority of the people commenting in here right now have seen it," then all of you are not cool. All of you should be ashamed of yourselves because you're no better than the scumbag who posted it online to begin with. Just because it's there and just because you can take it doesn't mean it's not wrong to do so. Well done.

I think you are being a little naive. The release of the pilot is viral promotion of the show. It worked very well for all the major shows recently and I think we can expect that this is not the only pilot that will be "accidently" leaked.

 

[Christopher]

The release of the pilot is viral promotion of the show.

That's widely suspected, but as far as I know, it hasn't been proven. So that should be "might be" rather than "is."

 

[theenglish]

The release of the pilot is viral promotion of the show.

That's widely suspected, but as far as I know, it hasn't been proven. So that should be "might be" rather than "is."

I could change it to might with a little wink emogi after it.

 

[Guy Gardener]

If Eve didn't make Adam eat that Apple, wouldn't the world have been amazing?

 

[theenglish]

If Eve didn't make Adam eat that Apple, wouldn't the world have been amazing?

Alternatively, Eve is the hero in the story. Thanks to her we have free will, choice, and the ability to choose our own fate.

If god had had his way we would have been like the hippy community in "The Apple" or the planet in "Return of the Archons".

 

[Guy Gardener]

Well after she found out what happened to Lilith, Adam had to go.

 

[davejames]

Ha, yeah even as a kid who was a big believer I never really understood why an apple from a "Tree of Knowledge" was somehow such a bad thing.

 

[Christopher]

Ha, yeah even as a kid who was a big believer I never really understood why an apple from a "Tree of Knowledge" was somehow such a bad thing.

Well, it's the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so I guess the problem is that it unleashed evil into the world. But as I see it, good and evil are choices people make. Knowledge brings the power to choose.

Although it's interesting to look over Genesis Ch. 3 and see how the story unfolds. Eating the fruit doesn't really do anything except make Adam and Eve aware and embarrassed that they're naked, i.e. create a sense of shame -- and shame can be a powerful incentive to avoid doing evil as society defines it. So they didn't really do anything wrong except eat from the tree, and for that God banishes them and curses them with stuff like labor pains for women and the hard labor of farming for men. And then God says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." In other words, God knew good and evil -- i.e. had the capacity for doing harm to others -- before humans did. That was an aspect of godhood that humanity gained. So it's not exactly saying that God was a force of pure goodness. I guess that's an idea that came along in the New Testament; deities in earlier traditions tended to be pretty morally ambiguous and capricious.

(Also, "like one of us?" Who is God talking about/to there? Genesis was basically adapted from the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish with the polytheism edited out, but maybe this bit slipped past the censors.)

Basically, though, the gist is that Adam and Eve were like animals, innocent and carefree, and then gained the godlike power of knowledge and choice, becoming fully human with all the good and evil, and all the responsibility, that that entails. And maybe the idea was that we got that bit of divine power before we'd earned the right to be trusted with it.

 

[Guy Gardener]

So, for those of us who have watched Supergirl illegally, we have become godlike?

 

[davejames]

Pretty much, yeah.

 

[Beagleman]

So, for those of us who have watched Supergirl illegally, we have become godlike?

I know I did. So for the rest, you know the drill, KNEEL!

 

[Morpheus 02]

If Eve didn't make Adam eat that Apple, wouldn't the world have been amazing?

Alternatively, Eve is the hero in the story. Thanks to her we have free will, choice, and the ability to choose our own fate.

If god had had his way we would have been like the hippy community in "The Apple" or the planet in "Return of the Archons".

Ha, yeah even as a kid who was a big believer I never really understood why an apple from a "Tree of Knowledge" was somehow such a bad thing.

Well, it's the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so I guess the problem is that it unleashed evil into the world. But as I see it, good and evil are choices people make. Knowledge brings the power to choose.

Although it's interesting to look over Genesis Ch. 3 and see how the story unfolds. Eating the fruit doesn't really do anything except make Adam and Eve aware and embarrassed that they're naked, i.e. create a sense of shame -- and shame can be a powerful incentive to avoid doing evil as society defines it. So they didn't really do anything wrong except eat from the tree, and for that God banishes them and curses them with stuff like labor pains for women and the hard labor of farming for men. And then God says "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." In other words, God knew good and evil -- i.e. had the capacity for doing harm to others -- before humans did. That was an aspect of godhood that humanity gained. So it's not exactly saying that God was a force of pure goodness. I guess that's an idea that came along in the New Testament; deities in earlier traditions tended to be pretty morally ambiguous and capricious.

(Also, "like one of us?" Who is God talking about/to there? Genesis was basically adapted from the Babylonian creation myth Enuma Elish with the polytheism edited out, but maybe this bit slipped past the censors.)

Basically, though, the gist is that Adam and Eve were like animals, innocent and carefree, and then gained the godlike power of knowledge and choice, becoming fully human with all the good and evil, and all the responsibility, that that entails. And maybe the idea was that we got that bit of divine power before we'd earned the right to be trusted with it.

Here's the thing -- Eve (or Adam) could have simply asked God what was the deal. They didn't. They chose disobedience vs. intellectual inquiry.

And regarding how God is referred to as "we"... English, we have a limited way how we talk sometimes...God is bigger than a man, and the three-in-one/Trinity idea will give God a unique way to refer to himself. It doesn't work well in English. (For example, some Americans use "they" as a gender neutral word, because "it" is infers a nonliving thing).

 

[Christopher]

^Err, the Book of Genesis was compiled sometime in the fifth or sixth century BCE. The concept of the Trinity, naturally enough, didn't come along until about a century after Christ. So whoever wrote that text could not have had the concept of the Trinity in mind.

And really, the OT God strikes me at the type who, if asked a question like that, would've responded along the lines of, "Because I said so! Now go to your room!" I mean, sheesh, most parents wouldn't banish their kids and condemn them to an eternity of toil and pain just because they stole a few cookies from the jar. That guy did not respond well to challenges to his authority.


Anyway, getting back on topic (more or less), here's an interesting defense of the 1984 Supergirl movie. It argues that it works because it's an unapologetic Silver Age story, with no pretense of anything more. I think Superman III actually works better than its predecessors for much the same reason, so maybe I should give the Supergirl movie another try. At least it'll be worth it for the music and Helen Slater.

 

[davejames]

Eh, I might be able to buy that argument if the movie actually had a real sense of Silver Age fun and imagination, but as it's so incredibly dull and lifeless that seems like kind of a stretch. And more like just a convenient way to excuse some really bad and sloppy writing.

And in fact the movie actually tries to be just as earnest and sincere as the first Superman for the most part, so I don't really get much of a Silver Age vibe from it (Superman III on the other hand is goofy and nonsensical from the very start, so I agree that probably would qualify a lot better).