The Four Color Media Monitor

The pretentious Inverse site's been fawning over the Supergirl TV series' depicting homosexuality in a positive light:

One of the most exciting plotlines in the second season of the CW’s Supergirl has been explored Alex Danvers’s homosexuality, and the story’s impact on the real world is starting to show as more and more watchers are engaging with this particular narrative. And to viewers who disagree with the show’s candor, Supergirl says, “Okay, bye.”

And to the propagandists running such a boring site as Inverse, we can say "okay, bye" to boot. They disrespect our views that it's not a healthy/sane practice, so why should we give them an audience any more than this series? Apart from studying their biases, there's little about this site to care for.

All that aside, I'm not sure "exciting" is the proper word to describe a drama-based situation, so they made themselves sound rather silly for starters.

A plot in Season 2 of Supergirl, Carol’s DEO agent sister Alex came out as a lesbian. She came out first to herself, then to eventual girlfriend Maggie Sawyer, and finally to her sister Kara and her mother. It was an uplifting story, and there have been many stories online about real-life fans who’ve found the storyline helping them come to terms with their own identities.

In that case, how come they didn't link to any of them? It sounds more to me like liberals who want to feel good about themselves, and the Inverse site is only too eager to distort everything in their favor.

The Sawyer character may have been depicted for a long time as a lesbian in the DCU, but I'm not sure that was actually established when she first appeared in Superman vol. 2's 4th issue in 1987, a creation of John Byrne (though he reportedly wanted to make Alpha Flight's Northstar homosexual proper in the MCU, which Jim Shooter talked him out of at the time, because he guessed it wouldn't appeal to the masses). Sawyer's lesbianism was actually established at least a year later in the sans-adjective Superman's 15th issue, and if homosexuality really mattered, then why wasn't it established on day one of her appearances? The whole out-of-closet theme was getting mouldy-oldy even then. In fact, what if sales-wise, nobody was impressed with homosexuality being presented, specifically, in an otherwise positive light? Historically speaking, the liberalism these story setups were built upon may have cost some readership back in the day, explaining why sales fell even lower as the years went by. If that was how Byrne wanted to approach his ideas for Northstar, it's no wonder Shooter's objections would've been for the best.

Supergirl has always been a relatively progressive series with regards to feminism, but Supergirl’s Alex Danvers storyline has been met with wide praise, with plenty of writers finding solace in Supergirl’s nuanced portrayal, especially in Alex’s anxieties and confusion over her identity.

Is "feminism" even a big thing anymore? According to Milo Yiannapoulous, it's losing popularity, because a lot of women are waking up to how the "social justice" it's building on today is actually doing more harm than good. And the praise they speak of is probably just coming from liberals like themselves, so I'd suggest they refrain from self-flattering.

Besides the above article, there's also the following awfulness from the San Angelo Standard Times that fawns over the Riverdale TV show, which, like many of the recent Archie comics it's allegedly based on, paints its picture in very dark, garish colors:

[...] It begins with the death of Jason Blossom, the identical twin of Riverdale High’s Queen Bee and resident Mean Girl, Cheryl Blossom (Madelaine Petsch). Much like “Twin Peaks,” Riverdale is going to be the ‘50s throwback town with dark secrets beneath the seemingly perfect surface.

Just what the world needs. Another murder mystery, which I no longer find an appealing genre. Oh, and look at the justification given for why this kind of approach must be taken:

Q: Why do that? Why change these wholesome characters from our youth? Is nothing sacred?

A: Because the wholesome characters from our youth don’t sell well any more. I read them until middle school and then quit, and I bet so did you. And younger kids today are playing video games, not reading Archies. Up until recently, the Archie titles were selling in the low thousands.

So for the last few years, Archie Comics has been working to fix these problems by placing the gang in new situations — zombie-apocalypse-survivor Archie in “Afterlife with Archie,” grown-and-married Archie in “Life with Archie,” not-long-for-this-world Archie in “Archie vs. Predator.” The publisher assumed affection for the characters would carry readers through, and it worked.

And for how long, exactly? Last time I looked, it was back to dismal numbers again (the main Archie title sold only 12,408 on store level), and even before that, it wasn't selling in millions galore. Their reasoning is laughable. The reason why wholesomeness allegedly doesn't sell any longer is twofold. One, educational decadence has led to a galling disregard for wholesomeness along with many other past classics, and two, pathetic, insular marketing that doesn't try to appeal to parents who just might be hoping to find something wholesome for their own children, and has nothing against such "old-fashioned" ideals.

And most people who lost interest in Archie after reading it in their youth did so because they were basically growing out of it, just like they could've grown out of any Saturday morning matinee cartoon series, or Sesame Street. They were growing up, and such programs weren't aimed at anybody older than 12, so they moved on to different products. Is that so hard to understand? Only for cynical journalists who didn't grow up mentally.

The core line of Archie books has been rebooted as well. The new titles still feature a group of basically good (and funny) kids, but the humor is more sophisticated and the approach more modern. They’re written and drawn by mostly A-list talent, and appeal to older readers as well as their children.

Umm, how do we know they appeal to the latter as much as the former? Most of the leftist ideas for entertainment introduced several years earlier were carried over to the rebooted titles as well, some of which aren't exactly suitable for children. Even the Afterlife series is hardly what you could call child-friendly, let alone family-friendly. Speaking of which, look what they've done to the Miss Grundy teacher character on TV:

Q: Wait, Sarah Habel is a hottie! Miss Grundy is supposed to be an old bat!

A: Not in “Riverdale”! And she’s something of a twentysomething cougar, having seduced Archie into an illicit affair at the beginning of the show.

Gee, how disgusting. They've corrupted a decent character by turning her into a sex felon. Let's be clear, the subject of teachers sex-ploiting their students is a serious one, but exploiting established characters in fiction for the focus is just as reprehensible. Yet this has basically become the norm for many years in mainstream comicdom now. And if it turns out the young Grundy's actions aren't depicted negatively (meaning, they made light of a serious issue for the sake of cheap sensationalism) it'll only become all the more mind-boggling.

Q: Wait, there’s sex in Riverdale? That’s new.

A: We still don’t see it in the comics. As to “Riverdale,” we shouldn’t be surprised. There was sex when we were in high school, too, and always has been. We just didn’t talk about it, and girls who got pregnant “went to visit their aunt” for six months. Welcome to the 21st century, where what goes on behind closed doors is discussed at Pop’s Choklit Shoppe.

We may not see it in the comics per se, but they don't seem to have a problem with depicting homosexuality positively in the guise of the Kevin Keller character either. On which note:

Q: Speaking of sex, it looks like Betty and Veronica are kissing on one of the “Riverdale” trailers. I guess in the 21st century, they just don’t need Archie.

A: Don’t worry, the central love triangle is still mostly intact on “Riverdale.” Betty Cooper (Lili Reinhart), who has been best friends with Archie (KJ Apa) since childhood, is wrestling with stronger feelings for him. That’s complicated by the arrival of Veronica Lodge (Camila Mendes), who snags Archie’s attention.

But Reinhart told hollywoodlife.com that the kiss on the trailer is a dodge. “They’re not romantically involved,” she said. And while there’s a lot of fan fiction out there about “Beronica,” and some fans would love to see them as a couple, Reinhart says “That’s not our show.” The girls are the best of friends, according to The CW description, and they’re unlikely to jeopardize that by fighting over a boy.

Q: So there’s no homosexuality on the show?

A: I didn’t say that. Kevin Keller (Casey Cott) is an openly gay student at Riverdale High, as he is in the comics. And while it’s by no means definite, Entertainment Weekly describes Ethel as someone “who has a major crush on Jughead … in the comics. But, on Riverdale, Ethel will find herself in a romantic relationship with someone very different.” It’s a good bet that someone is of a different gender.

So let's see if I can figure this out. Lesbianism is supposedly not something they want to promote. But male homosexuality is? We must truly be missing something here. Even if they don't corrupt Betty and Veronica, they're still insulting intellects by depicting male homosexuality positively, if anything. And, if matters of racial "diversity" matter, guess what Josie & the Pussycats rock band is like on this TV show, along with a few other leading characters:

Q: Or a different race?

A: That’s possible, too. The original Archie cast was created in the 1940s, so by default they were all white. “Riverdale,” however, reflects the America of today.

Veronica and her mother Hermione (Marisol Nichols) are Latina. It’s unclear who plays resident genius Dilton Doiley — both Daniel Yang and Major Curda have been mentioned — but he’s definitely Asian. Josie & the Pussycats, which used to have one black member, is now entirely African-American (starring Ashleigh Murray as Josie, Hayley Law as Valerie and Asha Bromfield as Melody). Ross Butler, who plays Archie foil Reggie Mantle, is part Indonesian.

Gee, that doesn't sound especially diverse so much as it does sound like a changing of the entire band's members wholesale, ditto Veronica, her mother and the Dilton character. These producers are just so cheapskate. They don't have the brains or creativity to develop new cast members so they only tamper with the old, not unlike how Marvel/DC have been doing the same of recent. Ordinarily, I might not have seen reason to complain, but this diversity absurdity is getting way out of hand within just a few years.

I'm not sure who they're marketing this stuff to on TV, but it sure isn't family audiences, and if the Marvel/DC publishers don't want family audiences for their flagship superhero titles anymore, the TV producers of these new shows clearly don't want family audiences either. And they'll probably defend their products by claiming family-friendly fare doesn't sell well anymore. Which I don't buy. It's just their selfishness stemming from their politics that's clouding them to reason.

Labels: Archie, dc comics, golden calf of death, msm propaganda, politics, Supergirl, violence