They are the front-runners to get the series according to TVWise.

I think they will go for LOT as that is part of the Arrow Flash Universe and will have crossover storylines where it starts on one and plays off in the other.

Supergirl does not have that problem.

They have said no crossovers are planned but they may have them at some point in a future series or may not ever.

Nor do Sky, look at Chicago Fire & Chicago PD..one on Sky and the other on 5USA, who will get Chicago Med? Sky will kick themselves if the don't get LOT though.

It's like you didn't actually read my post (or just extrapolated whatever the heck you wanted out of it). I didn't say YOU said that. I said it. It was MY point of view that her not having a handle on her powers is what's key to that Pilot. How you got from there to you thinking I said YOU said that is a total mystery to me.


I think a "one superhero per point of view" notion is terribly quaint. Also, your POV here is not realistic from a marketing perspective. They're selling the show in large part to girls and their parents as a girl power statement (not to the exclusion of other things though). And that's fine. It's a much neglected part of the market. I don't see the harm, or why you think it's such a disaster. Especially since the "stranger in a strange land" stuff IS still likely to be in there a lot too, given that they REPEATEDLY in their interviews talk about her spending her first 12 years on Krypton is going to give her a very different point of view from Superman. I mean how many times do they have to say it (in how many different interviews) before we believe this is going to probably come into play in episodes past the pilot? It'll be there--and if and when we see it done badly we can tear it apart if necessary.


I won't disagree that on Arrow they tend to get ridiculous with how they've shown women, and the very problem they had with the First Look causing Internet Nerds with Penises to panic and rant about the show certainly shows that that segment is terrified of estrogen. But if they just made Supergirl this totally gender neutral show, they'd lose the point totally. Is it a risk, yes? But the very fact that you had to backtrack on your earlier comments about men running the show when I mentioned that a woman is the head writer and showrunner shows that you've pre-judged this. That's the risk multiplied by every fanboy out there. But it's one worth taking, because frankly that fanboy population isn't a big enough one to make any of these shows smash hits. Arrow and Flash's numbers are GOOD but not major network hit good. That';s why actually trying something different is getting a shot. And if female skewing shows couldn't be hits, then the Shonda Rhimes block of hit shows on ABC for example wouldn't exist. Or Once Upon A Time. Well CBS wants to leverage some of that.


If you mean when Hank Henshaw said that... you DO realize he's supposed to be a jerk for saying it, yes? It's a cliched line, and the pilot has a few, but not so many its a disaster. The actual idea being expressed by Henshaw is dismissed pretty quickly and again we see his REAL issue is that he doesn't trust aliens. Hearing a single line mentioned for 3 seconds doesn't make the show all about that.


Smallville did Kara ridiculously. She was just another in their string of soap opera characters done over the top. Maybe gender wasn't an issue, because they didn't even really call her Supergirl or give her a public persona. And honestly, your suggestion that her character is DEPENDANT on Superman is more of a gender statement (and a bad one) than anything this show has suggested. Does he need to exist? Sure. Do we need to see him? I honestly don't see why we do. Maybe in the comics Kara was only used as an accessory to Superman, but this is trying to improve on that. It needs the chance to do so.


Firstly, that's not a bad reason to have her. Secondly, we all know a Superman live TV version is not ever going to be in the cards until they've cranked through some more movies. Look for it in a decade. For now? What's the harm in exploring Krypton through a less explored angle?

Relatives fall out with each other all the time and if a woman sleeps with her sister's boyfriend I would not have thought the results would be particularly conducive to happy families!

Having said that, as I remember it, there was no attempt to destroy each other. Most people thought Sarah was dead and when they finally re-united they did actually reconcile. I don't remember either sister trying to destroy the other?

You replied directly to my quote so yes, it would be natural of me to think that what you wrote was in reply to my original quote. And if it wasn't, as you claim, then I don't see what the relevance was of you even bringing up her powers at all...


No, that's the problem. And I'm going to explain why in relation to your next quote:


Because they're not doing it right, evident by the fact that many people, men and women, are turned off by the show already. You can market a show to women without it being stereotypical.

The trailer for this show was marketed like it was a romcom. It was so bad that it drew comparisons to the Black Widow SNL skit which highlighted all the pitfalls and mistakes creators make when trying to write a female superhero. It's almost like saying "girls don't like superheros and comic books, we have to make this more accessible to them" when if you look at the viewing figures for Arrow and Flash or even the box office for the Marvel movies you will know that's simply not true. You can't try to get girls to participate when you wrongly assume that they're not interested in the genre in the first place. You have to start with the premise that women like or can like comic books too. So far Supergirl seems like a show for women that don't like superheroes and never will. That's not a good place to start from.

X Men, for instance, (the comics, not the films) has wonderful female characters. Most women who read comic books will tell you that their first love was X Men. You know why? Because the characters are just excellent characters. First and foremost. Not excellent female characters but just excellent characters.


I've never seen them mention it. I only ever hear them talking about how it's going to 'inspire girls around the world blah blah blah'. Furthermore, I'm sorry but the whole "they'll tackle that once we get past the pilot" is BS. The pilot is supposed to establish the tone and theme for the the remainder of the series and to give people an idea of what's to come. At no point was the idea of her being an extraterrestrial a source of conflict for her in the pilot so therefore it's safe to stay it won't be later on.


Yes, but the point of Supergirl shouldn't be about her gender. That may be the marketability of the character back when she was created in the 50s but that's not the point of her story and should not be in 2015.


I haven't backtracked at all. In fact I quite clearly elaborated on my point that the men are in charge of this show which you have chosen to ignore.


If you're having to compare Supergirl to a soap opera like Grey's Anatomy that kind of tells me you don't understand the source material. Additionally, Once Upon A Time is not a female show, it's a family show. Plenty of men watch it, particuarly in the nerd community. And it's worth noting that OUAT has some of the best female characters on television right now without having to constantly hammer it in that the are, in fact, women.


Yes, and that's the problem. His beef with Kara should be his mistrust of aliens, it shouldn't be his mistrust of women. We don't have to make every man on the show a sexist pig or treat men like they're the enemy/threat in order to get across "girl power!" You get across girl power by writing a strong, intelligent and capable female with hobbies, flaws, ambition, motivation and character development.


It does when it's a recurring theme that is being preached and preached over and over.


You obviously haven't watched seaosn 10 in which her star episode is called 'Supergirl'. The public even refer to her as 'Supergirl'. She even has a secret identity. In fact, they even reversed her role with Clark's seeing as she became Supergirl first which inspired Clark to do the same. Smallville's Supergirl is by far the best portrayal of the character and the writers did that without constantly stressing her gender.


But that's how the character was created. She was created to appeal to little girls for marketability but the core central element of the character has always been her relationship with her cousin. There is literally no Supergirl without Superman. He inspires her, as he does so many others. He's the only memory she has of her past life which is why she holds on to him so tightly.


The fact that you acknowedge he needs to exist proves my point. If Supergirl is a strong enough character by herself she wouldn't need Superman. But she's not because she wasn't created that way. I'm trying to make Supergirl better here by working with what we have and trying to make it interesting. That is, an alien girl living in an alien world.


And it's way of doing that is by mentioning the fact that she's a woman 100 times over. Not very creative.


It's a terrible reason to have her. Superman is able to inspire everyone, men and women. Superman is about a man who has the most extraordinary powers which never corrupt him and in fact absolve him of all the petty human emotions like jealousy, greed and selfiness. It's his capacity for love and hope that makes him truly special. What about Kara is special or unique that isn't tied to Superman? Oh yeah: she's a girl!


The harm is that constantly referencing him just reminds you how lame Supergirl is in comparison. You can bet that if the show runners were allowed to they would have made a Superman show instead.

It's important to establish a healthy relationship between two sibilings we're supposed to like first before they fall out. Not present the older sister as a bitch trying to tear down her younger sister due to her own insecurities right off the bat.


If you recall the story that Sarah recites of how Laurel "won" Oliver you'll see that their rivalry goes way back. She then banged Oliver behind Laurel's back without any regard for how that would make Laurel feel, never apologised for it and then continued to date him when she returned. They both chose Oliver over each other when push came to shove. Disgraceful.

If they DO make a Supergirl movie, obviously the won't get rid of her (unless it gets cancelled. Heck, we still don't know if DC has a secret plan to bring Flash to a close by the time the Flash film comes out, leaving him as a LoT star only). BUT if they do do a movie, I'd say for certain that they'll mandate/restrict the hell out of heroes/villains they want to star in the movie so they can't use them on the show. The list for Arrow/Flash just keeps on growing, after all. It's separate universes, and actually stated to be the same multiverse, so this restriction/mandates should NOT even be an issue anymore. But DC just won't stop putting traps in its own path.

Don't get me wrong, I do NOT want a shared movie/tv universe (since it will ensure certain characters/locations NEVER appear on the TV versions because of actor cost and "reserve for movie" only characters/story-lines), but a shared multiverse where each of the video media versions have a universe is great. I like to think Batman '66 universe is out there somewhere, Smallville. Lois & Clark etc. The comics have there own multiverse, so video media should (and isn't this what they've said?) To me, the TV verse will always be better than the movie verse, since they have waaaaaay more time to flesh characters out, feature more villains/heroes, and literally go on for years. All movies have is "effects spectacle" and cramped short story-lines. It doesn't need to be movie Batman OR TV Batman, it CAN be both! Imagine a ten season Batman show, right from his first night right down to the latest comic arc? (Obviously not a copy of the comics, but adapted). People might assume the cast isn't big enough, but there's enough main heroes. Bruce/Batman, Alfred, Gordon, Dick/Robin/Nightwing, Jason Todd/Robin/Red Hood, Time/Robin/Red Robin, Catwoman, Batwoman, whoever's Bruce's latest love interest etc. Batman is so full of mythos that "just" a movie-verse of him is NOT enough. DC needs to cut their restrictions now because it only serves to hurt themselves and their fans.

New trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRgj2uZn-Dg

Exactly, there was nothing even remotely like two sisters "trying to destroy each other over a man".


You need to stop making such sweeping generalisations. I'm a woman and the first comics I read were Batman closely followed by Watchmen. In fact, I don't think I've ever read an X-men comic but I've probably tried at least one of most other franchises across both DC and Marvel.


Actually I suspect the reasoning behind the whole thing was to show what a total shit Oliver Queen was before he got shipwrecked and nothing to do with the dynamic between Laurel and Sara.
In addition, while they quite clearly do love each other and support each other in the show, this particular storyline was in the first series as a means of setting up the backdrop to Oliver's relationships with other characters on screen including their father.

Besides which, being siblings doesn't automatically mean you love each other and that whole dynamic is also examined on screen and in print in many films and books and even has a whole saying just for it regarding not being able to "choose your family".

Laurel and Sara's relationship is explored and developed throughout the show and they very definitely do not depict them as trying to destroy each other.

Mel's first line in that was very cheesy

Oh yes, there certainly was.


The operative words in what you quoted was "most" and "love". "First love" and "first comic" are not the same. Spider-Man was the first comic book I ever read but my first love was Batman and X Men.


They could have easily shown that Oliver was a dick without destroying the sisters' relationship.


And I'm saying that wasn't a good setup. They could have written a way around that and still had the same desired affect. The love triangle was so CW. Just corny and unearned.


It also doesn't mean you bang your sister's man over and over behind her back. That's just sociopathic.


Like I said, listen to Sarah's story of how Laurel won Oliver and you'll see what I mean.

Sky 1 have acquired the rights for Supergirl and are looking to air it at the end of the month.

Link.

I was about to say that! Nice that Sky have acquired it so it stays with its sister shows but it's a bit of a superhero overload for them.

EDIT: October 29th it seems so that would mean 3 nights of superheroes on Sky.

Great news that it's on sky one and even better that we don't have to wait long to see it. Wonder if will be a 8pm showing like the flash and arrow?

Only 3 days behind the US to not bad.

Great news. Looking forward to this!

That's great news for UK viewers. I'll still be watching at US Pace though as I don't have Sky

So Flash tuesday, Arrow, Wednesday, Supergirl Thursday mental

then we have Gotham/Walking Dead on monday. thank goodness AOS and The 100 arent back yet or I would never leave the sofa.

I don't watch the last two but I have Haven, Apprentice, Supernatural, Strictly, Rizzol & Isles, Doctor Who, X Factor, The Pinkertons, Orphan Black and Lost Girl to make up for it

I am surprised Sky actually have this, perhaps no bidding war happened and it was sold quite cheaply that matched the budget Sky was willing to pay...or Sky know they are going to lose The X Files or possibly Legends of Tomorrow.

Not so great for those without Sky, **** sake.

The Flash on Tuesday, Arrow on Wednesday and now Supergirl on Thursday, can't complain about that. I wonder if they'll get Legends of Tomorrow would they show it on a Friday? lol.

But it would make sense for SKY to get Legends of Tomorrow seeing as they show the others.

It has been ordered for a full season, but they haven't said how many episodes...if it is only 13 then that would tie up quite well with Legends of Tomorrow starting.

It's really odd they either went so late with either the negotiation or just the announcement of this. One might think they have no idea that announcing a show more than a few weeks before a premiere allows you know... publicity.