Supergirl (CBS)

Started by Silver Nemesis, Sat, 20 Sep 2014, 16:30

Previous topic - Next topic
There's plenty of guy-oriented stuff out there, I mean girls can like it (duh) but what's wrong with there being ONE thing that's girly and giggly and fun?

And I'm not singling you out Mr. Rockey (I guess that's what your name says? lol) I promise, I'm just like miffed because I'm seeing a TON of guys saying the same thing and it's driving me CRAZY. What's the big freaking issue?! It's ONE thing, one freaking TV show that is geared towards girls. Why is that such a problem?

Like she says in the teaser dealio, "Oh COME ON!"

If it's not your thing, don't watch it. It's that easy. If you think you might like it you should and if you like it, good! There's no shame in that! I knew boys who liked the Powerpuff Girls and I thought that was so cool. Who cares if someone says it's not masculine enough if you like it? They're idiots.

Ok rant over.

Quote from: mrrockey on Sun, 17 May  2015, 01:13
Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 17 May  2015, 00:47
The first two letters of your username automatically take you out of the target audience, darling. lol

Well, I believe that's part of the problem. Supergirl shouldn't just be aimed for girls, it should be aimed towards both. Just 'cause it features the word "girl" in it, doesn't mean it should only appeal to them. Superheroes can appeal to both genders, I know a lot of females who dug the hell out of Arrow and The Flash, so why can't this do the same as well?

You're right. Now to be fair Arrow cast an attractive male lead who bares his skin quite a bit. I'll give them some slack in the sense that there's never been a live action superheroine lead portrayed properly. The supergirl film tried to be super man which was just too bland (it doesnt help that they tried a shoe string budget), Catwoman and Elektra were both poorly written disasters and clearly tried to use sex over story.

I do hope they don't try and make it into a superhero version of gossip girl/the hills although some accused Arrow of initially going that route (which it did stray from). I like the costume but hate the colour scheme. This is supposed to be an upbeat character.

I hope it takes off (pun intended) and we've waited far too long for a proper female comic lead. As much as we slag on DC for their movie screw ups, of their modern TV shows, 3 out of the 4 they tried this decade they got right (Constantine being the failure... hopefully they keep Goyer away from this one). I think it would actually do wonders (hey look another pun) for the comic industry if they can get this one right and hopefully encourage more girls to get into comics. Boys get into super heroes because they dream of being Batman, Spider-man, superman etc themselves, hopefully they properly create a female role model on screen.

Here's a behind-the-scenes video featuring brief interviews with the main actors.



And here's a link to on-set photos.
http://screenrant.com/supergirl-set-photos-ambulance/


Whether this show is a hit or not, one thing's for cetain: Melissa Benoist is fine.  ;)
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

So...Red Tornado is in this show:



Looks like a poor man's Vision.  :-\

Source: http://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/614771-first-look-at-red-tornado-from-supergirl-revealed#/slide/1
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

Anyone keeping up with this show?

I like Benoist in the main role and the "hunk" version of Jimmy Olsen works better than expected, but overall, I think this would've worked better as a spin-off to an existing version of Superman. The whole "Superman is slightly offscreen to save the day and text messages Kara at the end" in the last episode just didn't work for me and just makes this version of Superman look like a jerk for not guiding her through.
That awkward moment when you remember the only Batman who's never killed is George Clooney...

Quote from: Catwoman on Mon, 18 May  2015, 09:45And I'm not singling you out Mr. Rockey (I guess that's what your name says? lol) I promise, I'm just like miffed because I'm seeing a TON of guys saying the same thing and it's driving me CRAZY. What's the big freaking issue?! It's ONE thing, one freaking TV show that is geared towards girls. Why is that such a problem?

Like she says in the teaser dealio, "Oh COME ON!"

If it's not your thing, don't watch it. It's that easy. If you think you might like it you should and if you like it, good! There's no shame in that! I knew boys who liked the Powerpuff Girls and I thought that was so cool. Who cares if someone says it's not masculine enough if you like it? They're idiots.

Ok rant over.
Call it "feminist backlash" but the common denominator seems to be guys who are sick and tired of comics needing more female characters and female creators, comic movies needing more of the same, video games needing more of the same, etc. People whined and complained for ages that Black Widow was always a supporting character in the Marvel movies rather than headlining a solo film. I'm at a loss to think of solo Widow comic that's worth half a crap but that's not the point apparently. We need more female characters, dammit! And don't forget video games! We need more (say it with me) female characters and female creators.

I get the idea that a lot of guys are sick to hell of all this arbitrary egalitarianism.

I've seen a few say that between the Wonder Woman film, the Supergirl TV show and the AKA Jessica Jones Netflix show people will finally STFU about this already.

I'm not saying I agree (or that I disagree) with the above; I'm just presenting the point of view I've seen a lot.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 12 Nov  2015, 23:29the "hunk" version of Jimmy Olsen works better than expected,
I think it's retarded myself but what do I know?

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu, 12 Nov  2015, 23:29but overall, I think this would've worked better as a spin-off to an existing version of Superman. The whole "Superman is slightly offscreen to save the day and text messages Kara at the end" in the last episode just didn't work for me and just makes this version of Superman look like a jerk for not guiding her through.
I thought about that and what I reasoned is that in the Silver Age, Superman's unspoken agenda seemed to be a hands-off approach with Kara. Yeah, he wanted her to master and control her powers. But if he wanted to train her himself, he sure chose a funny way of handling that by sending her off to an orphanage in Midvale.

Superman's agenda seemed to be allowing Kara to meet her own destiny on her own terms with minimal interference from him... perhaps better for not being forced to live inside his legend every single day of her life. He seemed content to let her cut her own wake and advance at her own pace.

Superman was pretty hands off with Supergirl in the Silver Age. Yeah she popped up in the occasional Superman story here and there but mostly they had their own lives and their own adventures.

The Supergirl TV show seems to be running with the same basic concept.

That having been said I find it all rather meh. Supergirl is okay but so far it hasn't really grabbed me yet. I could take or leave the episodes we've seen up to now.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 28 Sep  2014, 06:35The fact they've fallen into the bottom with their voices echoing must mean their chances of survival isn't that good. What could be in the bottom of the Fortress? It's never explained, and if there was water there then how could they survive if they don't have any powers? It is easy to assume that there's nothing there because the Salkinds and Richard Lester thoughtlessly disregarded their aftermath. I always thought they were killed. Once again, blame the producers and Lester.
That bit was written by Tom Mankeywhatsis and shot by Richard Donner.

I would add that in both cuts Superman tortures Zod by crushing his hand into smithereens and then he tosses him across the room to an at best ambiguous fate.

Ambiguous in the real cut of the movie anyway.

But in the Donner cut, Superman does all that and then collapses the entire Fortress down on top of him. If Zod was alive up to then, odds are he didn't survive a building collapsing in on him.

I haven't watched a single episode of this yet, I've been too busy catching up on Flash and Jessica Jones. But from what I've heard, it's a massive ratings hit. All I know is there was another JL member who made a shock appearance this season, but I won't say who.

The article I've linked below states how Supergirl is "a positive role model at a time when TV and film portray heroes as morally ambiguous and dark", and predicts Hollywood will become more confident in producing female superheroes for their own films following this show's success.

Source: www.techtimes.com/articles/104072/20151109/why-the-success-of-the-supergirl-tv-show-matters.htm

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri,  8 Jan  2016, 22:08
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 28 Sep  2014, 06:35The fact they've fallen into the bottom with their voices echoing must mean their chances of survival isn't that good. What could be in the bottom of the Fortress? It's never explained, and if there was water there then how could they survive if they don't have any powers? It is easy to assume that there's nothing there because the Salkinds and Richard Lester thoughtlessly disregarded their aftermath. I always thought they were killed. Once again, blame the producers and Lester.
That bit was written by Tom Mankeywhatsis and shot by Richard Donner.

I would add that in both cuts Superman tortures Zod by crushing his hand into smithereens and then he tosses him across the room to an at best ambiguous fate.

Ambiguous in the real cut of the movie anyway.

But in the Donner cut, Superman does all that and then collapses the entire Fortress down on top of him. If Zod was alive up to then, odds are he didn't survive a building collapsing in on him.

Of course, the Donner cut made this scene completely invalid when Superman turned the world around again, which I thought was lame. Even though it was originally the planned ending for SII.

As much as I love the 1978 movie and Reeve's portrayal, I don't understand the idea of turning back time if there were no ramifications for it. What were the producers going for exactly?

It makes me wonder if Bryan Singer had made a sequel to SR, would he have opted for Zod as the villain? Like the whole premise for SR itself, it doesn't seem like he had a clear idea of what he wanted. Singer explained he made SR as "a sequel to Christopher Reeve", and then claimed he would've made Darkseid as the main villain for the second film. This completely clashes with Michael Dougherty's claims of using Zod as the big bad again.

Source: http://screenrant.com/bryan-singer-superman-returns-criticism-darseid-sequel/
QuoteJonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei