Supergirl

[Scott Baker]

The show has gone from near the top of the heap of new shows to near the bottom in record time. It's most likely doomed, and the crossover is most likely a hail Mary attempt to give it a boost. What the show really needs is a winter break, and new episodes with new writers when they come back.

Interesting read that covers where the new shows are:

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/11/27/deathwatch-renewed-canceled

 

Given those numbers, Supergirl still isn't, "near the bottom." At least not yet.

[Pattern Ghost]

You're right, it's not near the bottom, it's actually in the middle of the pack currently, but at its rate of descent, it's headed there:

 

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/11/25/new-show-power-rankings-week-5-supergirl-is-flying-less-high/

 

 

 

8. ‘Supergirl’
Last week: 3

The biggest drop of the week after posting a 1.5 on Monday. Given all that was put into promoting the show, to be at less than 50 percent of the premiere rating within five weeks is disappointing.

 

That's a drop from 3rd to 8th in a single week. Being a CBS show, the numbers aren't good, but they do skew toward a younger demographic than most CBS shows, so they may keep it around a bit longer.

[zslane]

It's a shame because the character has all the same potential as Superman, in terms of storytelling, and the lead actress is an absolute gem. Those of us who were (rightfully) skeptical of CBS's vision for the show are watching that miscalcuation play itself out week by week. I don't put the entire blame on the writers because they are merely following a show bible that was conceptually flawed to begin with. It takes a degree of brilliance not generally found in Hollywood to take a flawed concept and make the writing transcend it. So I can't really fault the writing team for being unable to dig themselves out of an impossible situation like this.

 

For me the biggest issues are 1) tone, and 2) overly liberal use of the dumb stick. The first one forms the foundation for the show, and being stuck with a light, romcom tone doomed the show from the start, IMO. The second one is entirely the fault of the showrunner and the head writer (if they aren't already the same person) who is responsible for quality control of the storytelling and the dialogue. Most showrunners are overworked and given more responsibility than they can handle, which is why that role isn't for the faint of heart or the unequivocally brilliant.

 

I guess I've been spoiled by Agent Carter. That show sets the bar for what I expect, at the very minimum, from any non-grimdark series with a female action hero at its center.

[mattingly]

Supergirl has been picked up for a full season, going from their starting point of thirteen to a total of twenty.

 

Rumors of a Flash crossover have been dispelled by the producer.

[zslane]

Twenty would be a bit abbreviated since the norm is still a "front 13" with a "back 9" to form a 22-episode season. A "back 7" would be unusual unless something more important needed that timeslot two weeks earlier than normal.

[Clonus]

It's a shame because the character has all the same potential as Superman, in terms of storytelling, 

 

 

That's the problem.  Superman's storytelling potential is kind of limited.  Without Lois he's nothing.  

[Andrew_A]

That's the problem.  Superman's storytelling potential is kind of limited...

 

Eight decades of comics, would disagree with you. (Not to mention cartoons, movies, movie serials, TV shows, and one really bad broadway play.) This is Superman we're talking about, one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world.

[薔薇語]

Yeah, but just how many stories have dealt with the "I am ultra powerful and live in a world of Tissue" or "I have my one rule for a reason!!!" or "Lois just fell from a building, etc."? I think I just captured 80 percent or more. 

 

Soar. 

[Andrew_A]

Yeah, but just how many stories have dealt with the "I am ultra powerful and live in a world of Tissue" or "I have my one rule for a reason!!!" or "Lois just fell from a building, etc."? I think I just captured 80 percent or more. 

 

Soar. 

 

87% of statistics are made up. And no that doesn't describe eighty percent of Superman stories over the course of eighty years. Not even close. In fact, given the longevity of said character, it's impossible to accurately guesstimate what a representative sample of Superman stories are like.

 

I mean Jerry Siegel, John Byrne, Otto Binder, Jim Shooter, Alan Moore, Dwayne McDuffie, Mort Weisinger, and Denny O'Neil all had very different takes on the character. Then you have to consider the takes of actors like George Newburn, Christopher Reeve, George Reeves, Kirk Alyn, Dean Cain, Danny Dark, Henry Cavill, and several more than I can name. On top of that you have to remember that the time period makes a difference. Eighties Superman is very different from forties Superman is very different from fifties Superman is very different from seventies Superman, et cetera. A story written by Alan Moore in the eighties, is going to be radically different from an Otto Binder story written in the late fifties.

 

Next you have to take into account all the clones of Superman created by others. People keep finding alternate and variant takes on the character. Hyperion, Gladiator, Sentry, Supreme, Plutonian, Icon, Apollo, the High, Captain Marvel (Fawcett version), are all alternate takes on the same basic idea.

 

So, no, Superman's storytelling potential is not limited. If it was, the comics industry would have run out of ideas decades before any of us was born.

[Starlord]

That's the problem.  Superman's storytelling potential is kind of limited.  Without Lois he's nothing.  

 

So Superman's storyline potential is nothing.  The character has lasted 75 years thanks to the 'limited' potential of a feisty, investigative reporter who is also an on-and-off girlfriend.

 

I typed all that just so I could play it back in my head.

 

I'm not trying to be insulting...I'm just trying to comprehend the ability to actually think that while actually being a fan of the comic book genre.  Please explain.  For example, are you referring to the possibility that there just aren't any NEW interesting Superman stories to tell?

[Starlord]

 

So, no, Superman's storytelling potential is not limited. If it was, the comics industry would have run out of ideas decades before any of us was born.

 

Well, actually if everyone picked up Action Comics #1 and found it completely uninteresting there might not be a comics industry at all.

[zslane]

I hate the fact that the demands of dumb scripts prevent Supergirl from using her heat vision as her number one go-to weapon right at the start of any fight. She shouldn't be trading blows in melee, especially not as an opening move. She has an incredibly effective ranged attack, and she should be leading with it. Every time. She should use her flight to remain at stand-off distance and just incinerate her opponent (or whichever key component renders said opponent powerless to fight back). Freeze them first if she needs to render them immobile, and then incinerate them. Keeping Kara so tactically stupid isn't doing the character or the show any favors, IMO.

 

You can say that decades of dumb comic book plots have prevented Superman from doing the same thing, but that doesn't suddenly make it smart. It just makes it tradition. A dumb one. We need the writers to step it up and find fresh ways of telling Supergirl stories without resorting to the tired old cliches that make her look like a complete moron in combat.

[Bazza]

I hate the fact that the demands of dumb scripts prevent Supergirl from using her heat vision as her number one go-to weapon right at the start of any fight. She shouldn't be trading blows in melee, especially not as an opening move. She has an incredibly effective ranged attack, and she should be leading with it. Every time. She should use her flight to remain at stand-off distance and just incinerate her opponent (or whichever key component renders said opponent powerless to fight back). Freeze them first if she needs to render them immobile, and then incinerate them. Keeping Kara so tactically stupid isn't doing the character or the show any favors, IMO.

 

 

For a tv show, that would get old pretty quick. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think she'd prefer not to incinerate people, just as a thought.

[Hyper-Man]

It's called having a Code vs. Killing.

[zslane]

Which doesn't apply to robots. And the reason I also mentioned aiming for "key components" is because defeating a person with heat vision doesn't have to mean incinerating the person, but instead the source of their power/weaponry/armor/what-have-you.

 

Good writers can have Supergirl use her powers with tactical efficiency without making it getting old "pretty quick". There's a baffling lack of creativity there.

 

While there may not be much hope of actually seeing improvements in tv writing, that's no reason to pretend it is acceptable.

[Starlord]

I hate the fact that the demands of dumb scripts prevent Supergirl from using her heat vision as her number one go-to weapon right at the start of any fight. She shouldn't be trading blows in melee, especially not as an opening move. She has an incredibly effective ranged attack, and she should be leading with it. Every time. She should use her flight to remain at stand-off distance and just incinerate her opponent (or whichever key component renders said opponent powerless to fight back). Freeze them first if she needs to render them immobile, and then incinerate them. Keeping Kara so tactically stupid isn't doing the character or the show any favors, IMO.

 

You can say that decades of dumb comic book plots have prevented Superman from doing the same thing, but that doesn't suddenly make it smart. It just makes it tradition. A dumb one. We need the writers to step it up and find fresh ways of telling Supergirl stories without resorting to the tired old cliches that make her look like a complete moron in combat.

 

As I mentioned before - Superspeed.  Why does she it only use it to get from A to B?

[Pattern Ghost]

She has Flight 5" (xHoweverMuchSheNeedsforThis Scene Non-Combat Multiplier).

[Clonus]

Eight decades of comics, would disagree with you. (Not to mention cartoons, movies, movie serials, TV shows, and one really bad broadway play.) This is Superman we're talking about, one of the most recognizable fictional characters in the world.

 

He is indeed.  He's iconic.  He's archetypical.. There's a reason why the Dakotaverse equivatent of Superman was actually called "Icon".   But the stories themselves?  Nothing special for the most part although I can think of occasional exceptions.   Supergirl's problem is that she isn't iconic or archetypical.  She can't be, because Superman  beat her to being those things.  Superman is defined by being the paramount superhero of Earth, which why he experienced such power creep as other supeheroes entered the field.  Supergirl is defined by being...the paramount superhero of Earth's cousin.   

[slikmar]

One thing they started mentioning lately, granted probably a retcon, is that using laser vision expends some of the solar energy they have stored, thereby weakening them a little. This was pushed to an extreme when Superman started basically doing a Nova Blast, which would require him about 24 hours to recover from. Course, now he isn't recovering and is losing more and more power. He is at about High End Luke Cage level right now.

When you are basically invulnerable and stronger then everyone, your first thought isn't incinerate them, but just take them out quickly.

[Old Man]

SHIELD lost me by being boring in the first season. I think I got as far as episode 13 before I said, "It's called Agents of SHIELD, but I'm not seeing any." I liked what one vlogger called it: Interns of SHIELD.

I stopped watching partway through season one as well, but I picked it back up partway through 2, and I'm glad I did. It's definitely not interns any more.

[Greywind]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/could-tom-wellings-cbs-deal-lead-to-a-super-return

[Grailknight]

It's a shame because the character has all the same potential as Superman, in terms of storytelling, and the lead actress is an absolute gem. Those of us who were (rightfully) skeptical of CBS's vision for the show are watching that miscalcuation play itself out week by week. I don't put the entire blame on the writers because they are merely following a show bible that was conceptually flawed to begin with. It takes a degree of brilliance not generally found in Hollywood to take a flawed concept and make the writing transcend it. So I can't really fault the writing team for being unable to dig themselves out of an impossible situation like this.

 

For me the biggest issues are 1) tone, and 2) overly liberal use of the dumb stick. The first one forms the foundation for the show, and being stuck with a light, romcom tone doomed the show from the start, IMO. The second one is entirely the fault of the showrunner and the head writer (if they aren't already the same person) who is responsible for quality control of the storytelling and the dialogue. Most showrunners are overworked and given more responsibility than they can handle, which is why that role isn't for the faint of heart or the unequivocally brilliant.

 

I guess I've been spoiled by Agent Carter. That show sets the bar for what I expect, at the very minimum, from any non-grimdark series with a female action hero at its center.

 

I can't disagree more about tone. The Supergirl character has been light romcom for most of the character's existence. Even the most recent series never go darker than teen angst/rebellion and for much of her career, her stories were young romance.

 

The dumb stick is omnipresent in stories of any DCU character with superspeed. If Superman/Supergirl/Flash were run by genre wrecking gamers, then any villain they faced without a counter should wake up in jail asking who captured them. Kryptonians can scout a scene from 50,000 ft, observe powers, listen to plans swoop to attack before you can guess they are there. It's just that by genre conventions, only villains get to use their powers to the fullest consistently.

[Starlord]

This past episode was bad...again, but the Henshaw reveal was, in a word, AWESOME.

[Christopher R Taylor]

 It's just that by genre conventions, only villains get to use their powers to the fullest consistently.

Well established in comics by the reversal effect.  When a superhero becomes a villain or goes rogue, they suddenly gain about 150 points in powers.  Conversely, when a villain becomes a hero, suddenly they lose about half their power.  Why?  Because writing powerful characters is hard to craft a challenge with, but weak characters are easy to challenge.  And lazy, sloppy writing.

 

Super Speed breaks the game, as it were.  Any GM in Champions knows this.  The speedster utterly dominates combat, and a speedster with the kind of power level as Flash and the Supers would cost thousands of points.  Writing speedsters means either you are ridiculously inconsistent (the easy, most common way) or have very debilitating effects on the character constantly so they can't speed their way out of trouble (lazy writing).  Its very difficult to come up with a reasonable, constant, well-crafted challenge issue after issue or show after show.  So you get... crap.