This is the reason for the suit change: Melissa and the brass asked for it - ew.com article.

Haha, I think I was editing as you were typing....

Just remember to be respectful everyone! Tough topics require care and thoughtful responses

No...

My position is that we, as a society, should have the belief that we want to strive toward putting all individuals, from all walks of life - be that gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc. - to the same high level of equality.

Cannot agree strongly enough.

The smallest minority is one. When justice is ensured for each individual, I believe that what people call social justice follows.

My position is that we, as a society, should have the belief that we want to strive toward putting all individuals, from all walks of life - be that gender, race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, etc. - to the same high level of equality. There is an argument that some individuals are already at that level, and if so, fair enough. But, most (including both men and women) are not in all areas of life. And to state that men should be expected to lose something because they had something that they shouldn't have had in the first place, is a slap in the face to those who actually haven't had it and struggle in life every day, just as women do. All we're doing when we make statements such as that is alienating folks who work hard to try and and achieve a minimum level in standard of living. Additionally, it creates a further division in our society, one that we don't need to widen, but rather, bring together.

This approach doesn't take anything away from women gaining equality because IF we have the belief that we are working at putting all individuals on that same equal level, women's rise to it will naturally occur. Yes, we have more women represented in the House than we ever have had before. The reason for this is not because these women went into their districts and talked about taking back something that women had lost. Instead, it's because these women had the fortitude to get involved, were encouraged by others to believe that they could do it and then went in and talked to their constituents about how their district could gain by having them represent them. It's all about having conversations with other citizens that don't swing from one extreme to another.

It seems to like we keep butting heads, Sully! Oh well! The perils of being here. Anyways, I am quoting you because I really am directing this at you as well as everyone else.

I cannot really speak for Kelly or Brierrose but when a lot of people say men have to lose something, they mean what they had that originally belonged to women (or other races etc.) if equitably distributed. And, that is neither wrong nor a slap in the face.

There may be poor men (as there are poor women). Even so, they have had the luxury of seeing more representatives in the government across the globe, have they not? They have had the luxury of having way more media representation in a varied and diverse framework than women; and if they are straight and cis, way more than queer, trans and intersex. And that is just two things.

Let me give you a more basic example.

A few months back, a well known female actor from Kerala (my parental state; where I come from and spent at least a decade of my life) gave a TED video where she talked about how she finally feels free to have that second piece (or first, I don't remember the count) of fish fry in the home and it feels like feminism and freedom to her. She got a whole lot of negative feedback from men in Kerala.

What she was referring to was the practice in a lot of Indian (and possibly other Asian homes) of reserving the best food for men and boys in the household (no matter the economic status). So, this actor, while she was growing up was always asked to not take any from the fish fry (or meat or any delicacy) until the men and boys (her father and brothers or cousins) had their fill. And, if nothing was left after it, well... too bad.

And this is not something that used to happen decades ago. My cousin, recently told me how she struggled in her marital home because they had this practice (still there, so have) of the men eating first; and then men never checking to see if the women had enough left for them to eat. And, it is not bad planning on the behalf of women by the way. A lot of things like finances come into account. And of course, at times, men overeating or eating more of the special thing because they like it.

When people are talking about men losing something, they are talking about men in the same financial condition as them. They are talking about men specifically in their lives (though not always). In a specified socio-economic strata, straight upper caste (in case of US, white) men absolutely have more than what they in an equal society would have. At times, even men of the upper caste from lower economic conditions would have more because I don't think it is a general practice to deny things to cis straight men that are routinely denied to women (or other genders or other minorities).

At all levels, women and girls suffer from malnutrition in India than men (by a whole lot). So, you have programs that are oriented towards xx (which are underfunded because hey, men are there saying how terrible it is that women are treated specially and have special programs for them; and how men don't get equal treatment. And how general funds are specially used for women and how that is wrong. Do you see where I am going with this? And it harms those same underprivileged men as well because apparently they are these days born from XX's bodies and thus cis-female malnutrition affects them too.)

I can give you other examples, but elsewhere.

The point being: It is still painful to lose your status as the top person in the pyramid.
It generates fear. And it leads to reaction. But asking people who have suffered through centuries to keep not pointing out the fact that they have something missing and there are these inequalities that need to be corrected, because people who are there at the top of not economically but then demographically, would feel hurt...

That is like saying to the boy who got angry that his sister is asking for a second fish piece when he had only three that only his pain matters. And to the girl who asked for it that she shouldn't point at her brother or father as having more. Because think of all the poor people on the street who have none.

But at any sort of economic level, you have all genders and categories represented. And as such, at that level, it'd be women, WOC, POC, and other discriminated or underprivileged categories who suffer more than the men who have as you say nothing.

And by thinking only of the poor men and their feelings, you are also discounting the rest of them. At least, that is how it appears to me.

A rising tide lifts everyone. However, it will only do so when you focus on the bottom most rung; instead if you focus on the top most run, then only those top most rung will keep getting lifted and the bottom rung will slide further and further into ruin. Get left behind. If you (the generic you) think after they had their fill, the top most rung will share the left over, that is not how a lot of human nature works. That is why it is better to start with the bottom.

In Chemistry, from what I remember, the speed of a chain reaction is determined by the slowest. Likewise, the people on the lowest rungs are going to need more help and resources to bring them up to equality. That would feel like taking away for many men (of all walks of life). Saying that is not a slap in the face for anyone.

Not speaking is not an answer to any problem. See where that has led Kara and Lena. (I mean, Lena could speak to Kara and solve issues; instead, looks like she is going for resentment and wallowing in injury and would cause a whole season worth of problems; like always.)

Though of course they would need some support and such to deal with their lose of status. Whether the different world governments and communities have resources for that or not is up to them. However, sacrificing the rest for 'men who have nothing' is not the answer.

That part is in quotes to use it as a whole noun not because I mean it sarcastically.

Note: I am not speaking in US-specific terms because this is more of a global conversation and you have international visitors here. Some of those points, such as female malnutrition may not be the same in the US (or anywhere in the west). But, I'd say that the crux of the argument prevails.

When I say poor men; it is not snark. I mean economically disadvantaged men (just too many letters there to type every time I mean them). The only snark here is the Lena bit and the bit about who gives birth.

It seems to like we keep butting heads, Sully! Oh well! The perils of being here. Anyways, I am quoting you because I really am directing this at you as well as everyone else.

I cannot really speak for Kelly or Brierrose but when a lot of people say men have to lose something, they mean what they had that originally belonged to women (or other races etc.) if equitably distributed. And, that is neither wrong nor a slap in the face.

Hey Ssav, I believe there's an equal amount of both butting and meeting of the minds and it's all good.

I think that the issue that arises when we speak in terms of someone losing something is that the quest for the item is viewed as a competition. That in order for someone else to win or gain ground, someone else in that pursuit has to give up or lose. But, I don't see equality as a competition. It isn't an item in which there is a limited supply and if we give more to one, then someone else has to go without or less of it.

Are there some who fear losing their status in society based on some characteristic? Yes, I would say that there are and we see examples of that in their reaction to others gaining equality. But, we also see individuals who think that the solution to inequality is to dismiss others right to it because those folks held it for a longer time. Again, as though equality is something that can only be possessed by a few for a certain length of time. Neither position is one that will ever actually result in a equitable society.

I am not saying that we should focus on the top rung. The top rung is already in a position that enjoys the privileges that society has to offer. And, out of necessity, the bottom rung would require more resources to get them to an equal rung. However, by only focusing on the bottom rung, we are forgetting that there are a large number of individuals who live their life in the middle rungs. If we ignore their needs, then eventually they will watch as others rise to that desirable level of equality while they themselves drop, becoming the bottom rung on the equality ladder. Unless one is a saint, very few people are willing to sacrifice their own right to basic human needs and over time, these individuals will begin to resent those who are getting it while they are ignored. Which is a reaction that I think is also currently occurring in our society.

So, instead of putting people into groups or categories to divvy out some kind of equality dish, why not focus on people as individuals? Basing a path toward equality on what each person needs to get there. In this approach, we don't get into the trap of dismissing or marginalizing anyone because they happen to belong in one particular group.

Can’t wait to hear the “anti toxic masculinity” comment to explain the suit. You just know it’s coming. Calling it here.

****

You're probably quite correct in that assessment. I would expect nothing less but it will be a massive pity when it does show up. Especially on a normally civil Forum board such as this.

People seem to forget that despite the best efforts to freshen up / modernise / make more comfortable the look and to please Melissa and the brass, that it is still a raging dumpster fire. Putting it under different lighting still doesn't polish it any more or make it any more favourable. A dookie is still a dookie.

The look (both the new suit and the hairdo) does not favour her nor does it do the character any justice. It is too generic, androgynous, and exceptionally dull. It is a pseudo-female carbon copy / photocopy of the Superman suit worn by Tyler Hoechlin. It simply does not work for her, nor the character. Nonetheless, with bull-headed blindness, the show will go on with it to its own visibly-evident detriment. It is only a new wrinkle of many structural problems plaguing this series (Others being writing, VFX, story arcs, character development, cast changes, etc.).

What irks me to no end is the show keep doing soft reboot after reboot season after season in hopes of retaining viewer interest and relevancy, but it continually explodes in their faces because they've lost sight of what the show is supposed to be about (I.e. telling a good, cohesive, consistent and compelling story on a weekly basis). The actors can only do so much, but their efforts are being dragged down by too many wonky outside forces that should never have even been issues from the get-go. As the old expression goes: The horse should always go before the cart, but this show has ditched the cart in favour of a massive cinder block that the lead horse cannot realistically be expected to pull.

Melissa claims the suit change is more adult and allows for more range of movement. I'll agree with her second point but her first point is so far off the mark it hurts. The suit (any suit or clothing for that matter), does not make it adult. It is how she comports herself, expresses herself and comes across in her delivery. That's what makes the character an adult. A short-order cook in a silly looking get-up will still be more of an adult if they comport themselves in a certain way than any person in a business or power suit acting like a narcissistic fool. A cool look is desirable, but if it becomes a side-show distraction, it's not a benefit but a detriment.

Again, this is only my two cents.

@ kdogg87:

You wrote:

"1) The show ends. They would probably renew it for at least a shortened 6th season, just to give closure. And I would be okay with that, because back in season 1, I predicted this show would MAYBE get 3 seasons. I never imagined 5-6.

2) The other possibility is that the producers realize that the suit has had a detrimental effect on the show, and try to backpedal for a future season. I don't imagine them going back to the original suit, but maybe they'd create a new version that goes back to the skirted look. I don't personally see this happening, because they'd be going back to the same health, safety, and comfort concerns the original suit has. BUT...I have to acknowledge that at least it's a possibility."

*****

All very valid points and good reasoning on your part. Thanks for your insight.

I never said I was going to bail on the show - I'm too heavily invested in it (since I made the initial pitch to Akiva Goldsman at WB back in 2007, which they - the CBS and the Berlanti cadre - eventually used around 75% of what I suggested in the pilot) and would like it to succeed and take it to new levels of storytelling. But, with all of the changes that have occurred over the years (some have succeeded and some have flopped badly), something has to give. This redesign is simply another big, unnecessary misstep along the way.

As an aside: There is nothing stopping the PTB from giving the series closure within 5 seasons. Many shows end before they get to season 5 and still manage to have a large following after the series ends. This would allow the Berlanti-verse to focus more (resources and talents) on their newest female-led creation, Batwoman.

Like I pointed out in my reply to Kelly and Brierrose, despite high ratings (by CW standards), Arrow and the Flash have hit their collective storytelling brick walls. They may have the male viewership numbers because we're generally none-too-bright gluttons for punishment and cohesive, plausible storytelling is a distant secondary consideration to the action sequences (meaning; things that go boom is good and things that logically develop story and plot are no-no's). Truth be told, the shows have suffered from horrid writing for at least two seasons and this indicates that the Berlanti model of show making is good for at least three seasons per show but they start to stumble badly thereafter.

In fairness, this isn't a criticism or Melissa or the actors and crews since they have done a nearly-miraculous job of pulling off the next-to-impossible for four consecutive seasons, but a collective, snowball effect result of poor decisions along the chain of command that have plagued the show since Season 1. Too many cooks have definitely spoiled the broth, so to speak.

No one is denying the need for Melissa's overall well-being and happiness to be taken into account. Also, no one is disputing the fact that Vancouver certainly isn't Los Angeles weather-wise. Try pulling this type of show filming outdoors in other parts of Canada in the winter - it simply cannot be done. But, I fear that tinkering with the very iconic image of the lead character will not succeed as they are hoping. The new look (suit and hair) is a raging, flaming dumpster fire mess and she looks completely haggard, burnt out, and is going through the motions.

I'm not saying that change was not needed, just not this particular type of tinkering. What they've (the PTB, wardrobe and Melissa) ultimately done is genericise her look to fit with the current general universe of spandex-clad superheroes. Now, there's no discernible difference between her and every other hero on the market. Maybe I'll be gladly and happily proven completely wrong, but in the long run, I suspect it will come into much more prominent play as the show eventually reaches the end of its natural life cycle.

What would have made much more sense would be to freshen up the Kara Danvers look but not tinker significantly with the super suit (other than having the occasional limited use back-up suit - i.e. Lena's Kryptonite suit, etc.). However, since you can't have one without the other, an overall sacrifice was made. Also, with the CoIE storyline being front and centre this season, and the likely merging of the universes, it was inevitable. Instead of killing off the character like in the original DC comic run, they've simply decided to kill off the "look." (Which, in essence, works out OK in comics but is not particularly successful on TV screens).

Logically, what the PTB at WB (never mind the Berlanti-verse shows) should consider is to end this series and then move on with dedicated, high speed to producing the proposed live action film with a completely new take, new cast and lead, new locale and new interpretation and iteration. And, since a Supergirl film is supposedly to be in the works for 2021-2022, now would be a very, very good time to get the production rolling at warp velocity in that direction.

This show and the cast in general deserves a proper, heartfelt send-off before Melissa burns out from the excessively heavy, demanding role workload and continually colossal poor decisions by the showrunners and the CW. This will also allow her to be free from a massively burdensome project to decide to start a family if she chooses to, and move on to other things. Release her and the cast from their contractual obligations.

Now is an excellent time to do it.

People seem to forget that despite the best efforts to freshen up / modernise / make more comfortable the look and to please Melissa and the brass, that it is still a raging dumpster fire. Putting it under different lighting still doesn't polish it any more or make it any more favourable. A dookie is still a dookie.

There is no reason to call it a dumpster fire, especially repeatedly, or compare it to a "dookie". And by saying "people seem to forget", you make it seem like your opinions are the objective fact, rather than what they are, which is your subjective opinion. Again, I'm not the biggest fan of the suit. I'd prefer the old suit. But I acknowledge that there are people out there that seem to legitimately love it.

And calling Melissa's appearance "tired an haggard"? Was there really a reason for that? Not to mention that she's probably more rested than she's been in years, because it's the beginning of the season, and this is the first time she hasn't done a film, tv show, or broadway show during her summer hiatus.

I'm not trying to insult you, or anything like that. I'm merely expressing that when you state your opinions in a seemingly disrespectful manner, I can't take the post seriously, and it discredits some of your legitimate points.

****

Fair enough. People are entitled to their opinions and suit preferences. I will do my best to moderate my comments, but I'm calling them as I see them. Four years of the kid glove treatment is more than enough.

The show has pushed people's tolerances past their limits time and again and I've been conservative in my postings, polite, diplomatic, rational and quiet for four solid years, even as the building has undeniably and self-evidently started to structurally collapse. Yet, I cannot and will not stay quiet for something that is clearly indefensible. They've (the show in general) taken four years of dedicated, careful image work and crumpled it up and tossed it out. And they're seriously not expecting some fierce pushback?! Wow! That's priceless.

Please, face facts: She does look tired - 4 seasons of long, gruelling work will do that. The suit does look like a d####ie, trash bin blaze and is indistinguishable from everything else that's out there. They've taken something that was supposed to be a crowning jewel and positive affirmation for girls and women and mucked it up. For Pete's sake, Henry Cavill's MoS SM-version suit has more panache, vim and flair, and that's not meant as a compliment.

Maybe, just maybe, as I've stated before, I'll be pleasantly surprised at how the look turns out on screen over time but I just do not see it happening at the moment. Once people get over the giddy newness of the suit and see it over the long haul, it will become a millstone for her rather than a series refresher.

As for these posts discrediting my other "more" legitimate/credible posts, that's a matter of interpretation. I have reasoned my responses out and checked them thrice before posting. I have not disrespected Melissa's abilities as a performer or her in general, just the horrendous costume choice and hairdo makeover which she approved, what wardrobe made, and the brass ultimately signed off on. Once you realise (and I mean this with complete respect to you) that people will like and say anything without taking a cold, hard second look at things, you'll be less harsh of my assessment.

I may be mad as a hatter now, but I fear that this reboot / redo they're going with will be the straw that breaks the show. I won't get into other already-hashed out issues (such as writing, direction, plots, storylines, etc.), but the ad-nauseum soft reboots will eventually come back to haunt the production in a huge way.

And, to play nicely with the VIP passers-by who might stumble across said posts (notice - they're not on the News Page), the truth does hurt, especially if this is a decision that should have been made before the series started and not after it moved to another colder climate. If the costume change had been rumoured at be in the works since S2 or S3, it should have been done then.

As for Melissa's health and well-being due to the limitations of the other suit, there are work-arounds. For actors and people in general who have lived and worked in much harsher environments than Vancouver (Toronto, Montreal, etc.), this is almost an automatic given. Unfortunately, this was not carefully thought out despite it being in the hopper for two plus years.