Cool.
Speaking of the 50s, how must DCU senator McCarthy have reacted in-universe, every time he read about Superman operating globally, or more less Americanly behind the Iron Curtain?
I really should read JSA Golden Age again sometime soon.
"Superman & Lois Lane" flying to The CW
- Thread starter StCoop
- Start date
- Status
Cool.
Speaking of the 50s, how must DCU senator McCarthy have reacted in-universe, every time he read about Superman operating globally, or more less Americanly behind the Iron Curtain?
I really should read JSA Golden Age again sometime soon.
Which is why I said "reverted".
There's actually an episode of Supergirl called "Truth, Justice and the American Way," S1E14.
All that's been said about it here in-thread said, there are issues surrounding "the American way" pertinent to both Superman and Supergirl. For example, there's the issue of immigration and citizenship, and there's the issue of law vs vigilantism. Both have been handled on Supergirl. With respect to the immigration issue, it's a natural fit to set that in the context of contemporary American politics.
Regardless of whether Superman and Supergirl are fighting for the American way along side truth and justice, Clark and Kara are at least nominally American. In the CW show, Supergirl is considered American, too, and presumably Superman is, as well. Whenever Superman and Supergirl are acting either in concert with or as agents of the US government, politics have the potential to enter the story naturally.
All that's been said about it here in-thread said, there are issues surrounding "the American way" pertinent to both Superman and Supergirl. For example, there's the issue of immigration and citizenship, and there's the issue of law vs vigilantism. Both have been handled on Supergirl. With respect to the immigration issue, it's a natural fit to set that in the context of contemporary American politics.
Regardless of whether Superman and Supergirl are fighting for the American way along side truth and justice, Clark and Kara are at least nominally American. In the CW show, Supergirl is considered American, too, and presumably Superman is, as well. Whenever Superman and Supergirl are acting either in concert with or as agents of the US government, politics have the potential to enter the story naturally.
I should have put a winky on my post too, because "yeah" to all of that.Hasn't Superman mostly reverted back to just "Truth and Justice" in recent years though? I thought they'd mostly dropped the "...and the American Way" now 'cause, well...y'know.
I personally don't care about presenting political ideology in fiction, but I hate it when it's ham-fisted.
Last edited:
No one is either impressed or perturbed by silly attempts to play the "reverse racism card." That's so amateur night.
Seriously, if you'd really found that remark at all offensive or irrelevant you'd not have done a little hasty Googling in an attempt to refute it. "But if you must know..." is not much of a dismissive fig leaf really, is it now?
Others here have taken apart your inability or unwillingness to do basic research, so I needn't bother.
I don't think the costume is from the future, Brainy just used future tech to make it.
Wasn't there an arc somewhere recently that addressed the whole "American way" thing in a modern context?
They inherently are, to some extent, social commentary and even political commentary in that they deal with issues of crime and justice, that doesn't mean they have been or need to be partisan in their social and/or political commentary.
Of course they should be "partisan". It's called taking a stand on an issue.
Standing for humanity and fairness is now partisan, and therefore offensive to many conservatives.
It's been my observation that people who question politics in television shows often have questionable politics.
I think some of the most entertaining and thought-provoking social commentary is when it is pretty nuanced.
In particular I loved The Simpsons episode where it argued that TV probably does, at least can, inspire real-life violence and yet censoring art including TV is still a bad thing that shouldn't be done.
In superhero comics a Spider-Man issue had the character supporting increasing gun control, presenting that as a good thing, and then it led to crimelords using more destructive means, not being clear about whether that was also meant to be a commentary on real life or just fantasy. In Batman environmentalist extremist Poison Ivy is presented as a villain to be opposed, albeit one that the reader and Batman sometimes sympathize (and Bruce Wayne does support environmental protections in his own ways though to a much lesser extent).
Of course not every bit of commentary should not take a clear stand but admitting both sides have something to them and neither is completely right can be as or more interesting.
In particular I loved The Simpsons episode where it argued that TV probably does, at least can, inspire real-life violence and yet censoring art including TV is still a bad thing that shouldn't be done.
In superhero comics a Spider-Man issue had the character supporting increasing gun control, presenting that as a good thing, and then it led to crimelords using more destructive means, not being clear about whether that was also meant to be a commentary on real life or just fantasy. In Batman environmentalist extremist Poison Ivy is presented as a villain to be opposed, albeit one that the reader and Batman sometimes sympathize (and Bruce Wayne does support environmental protections in his own ways though to a much lesser extent).
Of course not every bit of commentary should not take a clear stand but admitting both sides have something to them and neither is completely right can be as or more interesting.
Governance is incredibly nuanced. Politic is hardly ever nuanced. The problem is people treat and use them as being interchangeable. The vast majority of art - like all of it - is political to some degree. But art doesn't govern.
If by interesting you mean gutless.
They're married, so no.
Do you think The Simpsons, at least in 1990 or at least the episode Itchy & Scratchy & Marge, was wimpy to argue both that TV can be harmful and it shouldn't be censored?
Never saw it.
Black Lightning has the same suit.
Or at least a similar special effect, of "nanites" crawling across his body as he changes clothes.
Brainiac might have been a good boy, and only used 21st century tech to dress the pretty little blonde girl.
I think that the costume design might be from the future, becuase Brainiac "knows" every super suit/costume that Kara is going to wear for the rest of her life, unless she's still alive in the 31st century... Timewrecked Mon-El tried to hook up with 1026 year old Kara, but she wasn't into bad boys any more? But I digress, This pantsuit might just be Brainiac's favourite Supergirl outfit, but Supergirl was not supposed to have started wearing it until she was in her mid 90s.
Last edited:
Indeed. The things the heroes on these shows fight for are matters of fundamental decency, compassion, respect, and justice. The fact that we have terrible politicians (and voters) who oppose these things doesn't make them "political." It just means the real world has villains, too.
There was a story several years back about Superman deciding to give up his American citizenship (just Superman's, not Clark Kent's, don't ask me how that worked) in order to be a better hero to the whole world and not be seen as serving one country's agenda. I think it was out of continuity, though, or shortly before one of DC's many, many continuity reboots.
What defines "partisan" is a function of what specific political parties choose to be for or against, and that's the parties' decision. Individual people can choose to believe a thing because they think it's right, independent of what a given political party's platform may be. They can't help it if a certain party chooses to declare itself hostile to their beliefs. The problem with partisans is that they assume everyone else is partisan too, that their beliefs are about taking one "side" or the other in a political gang war rather than about what the individual believes is right. It's that kind of thinking that keeps us from listening to each other, from giving a fair hearing to points of view different from our own.
If that's what they argued, they were wrong (in the first part). The allegation that media violence promotes real-life violence was debunked decades ago, despite its recent revival among pundits. The only people likely to be inspired to violence by media imagery are those who are already predisposed to violence. If it weren't the media, something else would trigger them. Or maybe they just blame the media for their own actions to dodge responsibility.
For myself, I found long ago that the more I was exposed to violence in media, the more it turned me off of violence. For a while I wasn't troubled by it, but as I kept seeing more and more of it, I just got sick of it.
I would say complex instead of gutless. There is value in trusting your audience to make up their own minds by simply exploring a issue without using strawman arguments or being preachy. IMO ever show should be written like your audience is smart,reasonable moderates who can handle criticism. Everything should also feel consitent with their character. Also you need characters with different world views for character conflict and the deeper the differences the better drama and comedy you will get. Jason
- Status