That's really what best defines the anti-Supergirl "reviews" of the show. Occasionally there's a valid argument like Mehcad Brooks lacking chemistry with his co-stars, to which I mostly agree. His role would've been better suited like Flockhart was. The background character that lends a link to Superman, but no active plot-direction. No, he does not need a camera. He WAS a photographer, now he's an editor-in-chief. See the difference?
But the complaints that being a liberal show is bad, including unlikely character developments to "pander" to the audience... Superman has pandered to white dudes for decades! The all-American quarterback with an unwavering moral compass. How is that not unlikely? And you can't even base his emotional state on being superhuman, because that has nothing to do with it. Raised in Kansas and American through and through. His family are his values, which raised him inclusive, empathetic and kind. *cough* Supergirl *cough*
There's too many comicbook purists that doesn't like where their superheroes is headed, but think of how many young people who see these heroes now and relate because the world they are fighting mirrors their own, sans powers. The entire point of Superman/girl is that they are supposed to represent what's best in every human, to solve problems not through force, but through heart.
That said, the inconsistencies around Nia is not to be ignored. Born male, but somehow develop powers only female genes would lend her. That's iffy continuation right there.
That said, the inconsistencies around Nia is not to be ignored. Born male, but somehow develop powers only female genes would lend her. That's iffy continuation right there.