That review is scathing. And, while it's not entirely wrong, it's definitely exaggerated for sarcastic effect. 'Supergirl' might not be the best superhero television series ever made, but it's...
That review is scathing. And, while it's not entirely wrong, it's definitely exaggerated for sarcastic effect. 'Supergirl' might not be the best superhero television series ever made, but it's also not the hot mess this writer is trying to make it out to be. I've been watching it for the past couple of months (I've finished the first two seasons), and I'm finding it quite enjoyable.
Indeed and I love it for that. That said, I've admittedly not seen a single episode of it so you say it's enjoyable, I have no reason to doubt you. In any case, the real issue here is trans...
That review is scathing
Indeed and I love it for that. That said, I've admittedly not seen a single episode of it so you say it's enjoyable, I have no reason to doubt you.
In any case, the real issue here is trans representation on TV and I'm all for that, whatever the show is.
EDIT: This is my favourite bit:
She always has a cruel/kind word for Kara, reminding her how hideously difficult it is to be an astonishingly wealthy and powerful straight white woman in America. “I, a woman, couldn’t get away with behaving like Perry White!” (I paraphrase) she opines to Cara in one episode, in between scenes of acting like a petulant self-important bully. It is she who gives Supergirl the name “Supergirl” via her network of television stations, newspapers, magazines, skywriters and so on, and then in the most confusing mess of a soliloquy, explains how it’s not sexist to call her a girl, while Metropolis’s hero gets to be a man. No, it is sexist. It’s just sexist. The attempts to wriggle out of it, to justify a name they were clearly always stuck with, are embarrassing.
I love a good scathing review, myself. But it helps if I agree with it - even if only partly! Word to the wise: if you haven't seen a show, maybe don't describe it as "terrible"? Maybe just...
Indeed and I love it for that.
I love a good scathing review, myself. But it helps if I agree with it - even if only partly!
I've admittedly not seen a single episode of it
Word to the wise: if you haven't seen a show, maybe don't describe it as "terrible"? Maybe just restrict yourself to saying "this review says it terrible"?
I'm pretty sure that was a reference to the review title (Why Is Supergirl (CBS, Sky 1) So Terrible?), not necessarily a statement of OPs opinion, but it was kind of ambiguous.
Word to the wise: if you haven't seen a show, maybe don't describe it as "terrible"? Maybe just restrict yourself to saying "this review says it terrible"?
I'm pretty sure that was a reference to the review title (Why Is Supergirl (CBS, Sky 1) So Terrible?), not necessarily a statement of OPs opinion, but it was kind of ambiguous.
^ That. I'd also like to add that I've been reading the author's work for more than a decade now and our tastes and opinions seem to be extremely similar, so if he found the show so terrible -...
^ That. I'd also like to add that I've been reading the author's work for more than a decade now and our tastes and opinions seem to be extremely similar, so if he found the show so terrible - enough to write that review, there is very little chance I'd enjoy it myself.
Additionally, @Algernon_Asimov, if you'd like to criticize the author and defend the show for being "not the hot mess this writer is trying to make it out to be", perhaps you should refute some of the author's points and provide counter examples from your own experience? Word to the wise...
I would find it difficult to critique that review without going back and re-watching the first nine episodes of the show, comparing the review to the parts of the show being reviewed, and then...
I would find it difficult to critique that review without going back and re-watching the first nine episodes of the show, comparing the review to the parts of the show being reviewed, and then taking my own notes. As I said, I've watched two whole seasons over the past couple of months, and the various episodes have all blurred into each other in my memory. For example: I wouldn't know if I was defending the show based on something that came up in the latter half of the first season, which the reviewer didn't see.
Also, I feel like the review is written so broadly and vaguely as to not provide any openings for valid engagement. Saying something like "this is the most saccharine, feeble, self-hating crap imaginable" is basically disliking the show itself, rather than criticising one aspect of it. The reviewer seems to dislike the fact that this show is not a full-on, beat-'em-up, action show, and that it includes a large aspect of character-based drama.
That said, there's one section in the review which leapt out to me as being immediately and directly open to criticism:
Dear God – if there was anything that should have been a day one rule, it was, “Don’t mention Kryptonite until we’re utterly desperate in season 3.” It also entirely chickens out of the most interesting aspect of the Supermyth: how do you make a programme about an invincible god involve any sense of peril?
I don't know... how about by introducing something which weakens that invincible god and makes her vulnerable to physical attack?
This is the most obviously silly point in the review. He criticises the introduction of an element which creates peril for the hero, and then immediately complains that there's no way to put the hero in peril. What?
Supergirl has lots of issues, but Walker isn't really describing any of them. His review is just a sarcastic rant that can't seem to decide how to spell Kara/Cara. I'm not even sure what his issue...
Supergirl has lots of issues, but Walker isn't really describing any of them. His review is just a sarcastic rant that can't seem to decide how to spell Kara/Cara. I'm not even sure what his issue actually is with the show, other than he doesn't like it - which is fine.
It's no Veronica Mars, but really doesn't deviate far from any of the DC show.
I just don't really get people complaining about things they haven't read/watched.
Are we looking at the same review? Here, let me quote some of the problems he mentions. Non-sensical story: Sexism, privilege: On being "not Superman": On shit villians: I'm going to stop here...
Supergirl has lots of issues, but Walker isn't really describing any of them [...] I'm not even sure what his issue actually is with the show
Are we looking at the same review? Here, let me quote some of the problems he mentions.
Non-sensical story:
She gets adopted by a family of Clarklikes, with an older sister to boot, and is convinced to keep her powers a secret because OF THE NO REASON WHATSOEVER.
But wouldn’t you know it, moments after she tells big sis she fancies letting her powers out, a passenger jet her sibling’s on falls out of the sky. She has no choice but to carry it down to National City’s convenient city-enwrapped lake, and now has the bug for it.
TWIST! Her sister works for a secret organisation that fights against alien menaces on Earth, and hasn’t told her.
It also entirely chickens out of the most interesting aspect of the Supermyth: how do you make a programme about an invincible god involve any sense of peril?
[Things] become absolutely batshit crazy by episode 9, where Cara’s angry aunt is suddenly supported by about 20 flying Kryptonite superheroes, and you realise that at any point they could take over the world if they just bloody tried. But it’s also clear that the writers couldn’t give a crap about anything making any sense at all here.
Sexism, privilege:
She always has a cruel/kind word for Kara, reminding her how hideously difficult it is to be an astonishingly wealthy and powerful straight white woman in America.
[Flockhart] gives Supergirl the name “Supergirl” via her network of television stations, newspapers, magazines, skywriters and so on, and then in the most confusing mess of a soliloquy, explains how it’s not sexist to call her a girl, while Metropolis’s hero gets to be a man. No, it is sexist. It’s just sexist. The attempts to wriggle out of it, to justify a name they were clearly always stuck with, are embarrassing.
[...] the idea of powerful women was always an illusion. Not only is Cara at the behest of a male boss, but she has her every decision made for her by her best-friend-who’s-in-love-with-her Winslow
In one episode, Kara is deep into yet another whinge about how incredibly hard it is to be a superpowered rich, white, straight, beautiful goddess in America, and Brook’s Olsen replies, “Er, try being black.” It’s coughed over, and then everything carries on as it was.
On being "not Superman":
[...] the show’s weird, self-destructive obsession with pointing out that Supergirl, and the show itself, isn’t as good as or as interesting as Superman. Every single week it finds a way to crowbar in a reference to the one name it desperately needs to leave alone, in a self-effacing way that only serves to help the viewer nod and agree that it would be a lot better if he were around. He might get on with saving some desperate people, rather than worrying that a latte is the wrong temperature.
On shit villians:
Rather than using an iota of imagination or ingenuity, they instead opt for [...] an unlimited supply of equally powerful super-villains, who all wait in turn to try to attack… a tree or something. None seems to have any ambition beyond knocking something over
I'm going to stop here before quoting the entire article.
It honestly just wasn't a good review for me. Any story can be presented as non-nonsensical when you pick and choose details without context. You didn't watch the show, so I'm not going to get...
It honestly just wasn't a good review for me.
Non-sensical story:
Any story can be presented as non-nonsensical when you pick and choose details without context. You didn't watch the show, so I'm not going to get into these details. Unless you really care to know...
Sexism, privilege:
I'm a bit biased on this one because 1) I know the comics (and specifically why they can't use Superwoman), and 2) I believe privileged people can still have issues in their lives. There are real issues portraying a female icon in this show, and I would personal go with how it seems to always fail the Bechtel test. Being a strong, powerful woman, doesn't mean rejecting family (Cat's son). I also honestly love the way the sister relationship is portrayed. Yes there are parts that are really melodramatic, but there's some really good parts where their relationship feels very real (speaking as some who has a sister).
On being "not Superman":
This one's sort of funny to me, as a DC comic fan, because Supergirl basically covers Superman stories from the comics that won't make it into theaters.
A personal opinion on this, is that the show is purposefully pointing out how woman are always compared to men, especially in media like comics and TV.
On shit villians:
The villains are pretty much on par with what's in the comics and other superhero shows. I'm probably biased here since I read a lot of comics and also watch The Flash, Gotham and DC Legends. I sort of like being able to see a lot of the B-villains from the comics in these shows that you wouldn't otherwise see.
Also, don't really think Supergirl is a villain focused show.
Walker didn't really provide strong examples for me, which is why I commented the way I did. I prefer reviews that break down scenes, characters and such a bit more. Not that his review wasn't kinda entertaining to read.
PS, I love discussing DC comics/shows/movies. I didn't specifically include any detailed examples either because you've already mentioned that you haven't seen the show. However, if you're interested, I'm happy to go on...
Yeah I know Supergirl is a bit of garbage television but it's fun and light-hearted and Melissa Benoist is such a perfect fit for the character. On the other hand there are some lines that make me...
Yeah I know Supergirl is a bit of garbage television but it's fun and light-hearted and Melissa Benoist is such a perfect fit for the character.
On the other hand there are some lines that make me cringe. Also the DEO is horribly incompetent and don't really make a whole lot of sense. Like why do they have a giant opening in the wall that's constantly inviting attacks?
Don't you mean, why do they have a giant glass-covered above-ground skyscraper that's visible to everyone and vulnerable to attacks from all sides? :) It made much more sense in the first season...
Like why do they have a giant opening in the wall that's constantly inviting attacks?
Don't you mean, why do they have a giant glass-covered above-ground skyscraper that's visible to everyone and vulnerable to attacks from all sides? :) It made much more sense in the first season when they were underground.
"Why? Because she's a girl?" So many bad lines! It's a nice fluffy show for me too. So many eye-rolling parts though, like how they won against they Daxomites...
"Why? Because she's a girl?"
So many bad lines! It's a nice fluffy show for me too. So many eye-rolling parts though, like how they won against they Daxomites...
While this is definitely good news, I just wish it was happening on a show that wasn't so terrible.
That review is scathing. And, while it's not entirely wrong, it's definitely exaggerated for sarcastic effect. 'Supergirl' might not be the best superhero television series ever made, but it's also not the hot mess this writer is trying to make it out to be. I've been watching it for the past couple of months (I've finished the first two seasons), and I'm finding it quite enjoyable.
Indeed and I love it for that. That said, I've admittedly not seen a single episode of it so you say it's enjoyable, I have no reason to doubt you.
In any case, the real issue here is trans representation on TV and I'm all for that, whatever the show is.
EDIT: This is my favourite bit:
I love a good scathing review, myself. But it helps if I agree with it - even if only partly!
Word to the wise: if you haven't seen a show, maybe don't describe it as "terrible"? Maybe just restrict yourself to saying "this review says it terrible"?
I'm pretty sure that was a reference to the review title (
Why Is Supergirl (CBS, Sky 1) So Terrible?), not necessarily a statement of OPs opinion, but it was kind of ambiguous.When I read that sentence, it looked like calcifer was owning that opinion, rather than merely referring to it.
^ That. I'd also like to add that I've been reading the author's work for more than a decade now and our tastes and opinions seem to be extremely similar, so if he found the show so terrible - enough to write that review, there is very little chance I'd enjoy it myself.
Additionally, @Algernon_Asimov, if you'd like to criticize the author and defend the show for being "not the hot mess this writer is trying to make it out to be", perhaps you should refute some of the author's points and provide counter examples from your own experience? Word to the wise...
I would find it difficult to critique that review without going back and re-watching the first nine episodes of the show, comparing the review to the parts of the show being reviewed, and then taking my own notes. As I said, I've watched two whole seasons over the past couple of months, and the various episodes have all blurred into each other in my memory. For example: I wouldn't know if I was defending the show based on something that came up in the latter half of the first season, which the reviewer didn't see.
Also, I feel like the review is written so broadly and vaguely as to not provide any openings for valid engagement. Saying something like "this is the most saccharine, feeble, self-hating crap imaginable" is basically disliking the show itself, rather than criticising one aspect of it. The reviewer seems to dislike the fact that this show is not a full-on, beat-'em-up, action show, and that it includes a large aspect of character-based drama.
That said, there's one section in the review which leapt out to me as being immediately and directly open to criticism:
I don't know... how about by introducing something which weakens that invincible god and makes her vulnerable to physical attack?
This is the most obviously silly point in the review. He criticises the introduction of an element which creates peril for the hero, and then immediately complains that there's no way to put the hero in peril. What?
Supergirl has lots of issues, but Walker isn't really describing any of them. His review is just a sarcastic rant that can't seem to decide how to spell Kara/Cara. I'm not even sure what his issue actually is with the show, other than he doesn't like it - which is fine.
It's no Veronica Mars, but really doesn't deviate far from any of the DC show.
I just don't really get people complaining about things they haven't read/watched.
Are we looking at the same review? Here, let me quote some of the problems he mentions.
I'm going to stop here before quoting the entire article.
It honestly just wasn't a good review for me.
Any story can be presented as non-nonsensical when you pick and choose details without context. You didn't watch the show, so I'm not going to get into these details. Unless you really care to know...
I'm a bit biased on this one because 1) I know the comics (and specifically why they can't use Superwoman), and 2) I believe privileged people can still have issues in their lives. There are real issues portraying a female icon in this show, and I would personal go with how it seems to always fail the Bechtel test. Being a strong, powerful woman, doesn't mean rejecting family (Cat's son). I also honestly love the way the sister relationship is portrayed. Yes there are parts that are really melodramatic, but there's some really good parts where their relationship feels very real (speaking as some who has a sister).
This one's sort of funny to me, as a DC comic fan, because Supergirl basically covers Superman stories from the comics that won't make it into theaters.
A personal opinion on this, is that the show is purposefully pointing out how woman are always compared to men, especially in media like comics and TV.
The villains are pretty much on par with what's in the comics and other superhero shows. I'm probably biased here since I read a lot of comics and also watch The Flash, Gotham and DC Legends. I sort of like being able to see a lot of the B-villains from the comics in these shows that you wouldn't otherwise see.
Also, don't really think Supergirl is a villain focused show.
Walker didn't really provide strong examples for me, which is why I commented the way I did. I prefer reviews that break down scenes, characters and such a bit more. Not that his review wasn't kinda entertaining to read.
PS, I love discussing DC comics/shows/movies. I didn't specifically include any detailed examples either because you've already mentioned that you haven't seen the show. However, if you're interested, I'm happy to go on...
Yeah I know Supergirl is a bit of garbage television but it's fun and light-hearted and Melissa Benoist is such a perfect fit for the character.
On the other hand there are some lines that make me cringe. Also the DEO is horribly incompetent and don't really make a whole lot of sense. Like why do they have a giant opening in the wall that's constantly inviting attacks?
Don't you mean, why do they have a giant glass-covered above-ground skyscraper that's visible to everyone and vulnerable to attacks from all sides? :) It made much more sense in the first season when they were underground.
They're almost as bad as Torchwood.
"Why? Because she's a girl?"
So many bad lines! It's a nice fluffy show for me too. So many eye-rolling parts though, like how they won against they Daxomites...