My thoughts on the show, exactly. It brings back that feeling of, "why?" Why can't we just have good shows and movies without preaching or ham-fisted politics?

It really isn't that hard and the success of movies and shows that DON'T do this versus the failure of so many that do just demonstrates what audiences want in entertainment. It's a common leftist thought that there is no way to prop up one group or person without first deconstructing, delegitimizing, or destroying another. It's lazy story-telling when done with existing IP and characters.

For me, it will ultimately come down to how the rest of the season handles Hal Jordan and John Stewart. Can they tell this story without ****ting all over Hal Jordan and can they raise John Stewart without making him just seem like a cheesy liberal wet dream. So far, I have no issue with those two characters and how they have been handled, which is why I have and will continue to watch. If they can tell a story that shows both these characters grow and come to understand one another better, then that would lead to a better chance at a successful show, imo. I want John Stewart to be a Lantern that the entire audience is behind, not just those viewers that share a worldview with his parents.

I will allow that we have seen the personal beliefs and opinions of the parents, which in and of itself doesn't equal "woke show" to me. But I want to see juxtaposition with other opinions or the reality of these characters. I'm fine with the parents ****ting on Hal Jordan as long as the showrunners continue to show us a Green Lantern that is capable and deserving of the mantle. I don't mind the grizzled veteran who has been doing this for 30 years being a bit gruff and sure of himself.

Quote:

---

Well this thread is gonna be insufferable from now on, it was good while it lasted

---

Posts like this one are the ones that I roll my eyes at the most often.

Quote:

---

I want John Stewart to be a Lantern that the entire audience is behind, not just those viewers that share a worldview with his parents.

---

I'm pretty sure the libs aren't taking their kids in the backyard to shoot apples of their heads and then handing them the gun to shoot an apple off theirs.

fig96 said:

---

I feel like "crazy redneck militia" is projecting a lot onto something we know nothing about yet. We don't even know if they're human at this point, there's still a ton of mystery around Rushville and the entire situation there.

I do think the viewpoints of John's parents could have been handled in a less on the nose kind of way, it's not wrong for them to feel how they feel but the writing made them come off as very one note. People of different races do absolutely face different levels of discrimination, but there's a lot more nuance to the discussion.

Curious to see where things go from here.

---

I chuckled when his mom when relaying that the cops came to talk to them when they tried sell a diamond the size of a dog's head. Pretty sure the cops would have done the same thing to anyone producing that thing.

Ok, so just watched the episode. I think the funniest thing is that these liberal white writers and showrunners virtue signal against racism using heavy-handed dialogue and caricatures of white racists, but don't even realize they're actually being racist by insisting that every story involving a black person has to be about race. And then they top it off by playing up a racist stereotype. I'm talking about about the fact that the writers had John's parents train him by dropping him off in the most dangerous neighborhood the writers could think of - a black ghetto!! Lol.

Besides, according to the show dialogue, if 1996 was so dangerous for black people due to racism shouldn't his parents have dropped him off in an affluent neighborhood full of privileged white people as a way to train fear out of him?

Anyway, this was an interesting episode and adds more depth to John so that he's not so one dimensional.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Ok, so just watched the episode. I think the funniest thing is that these liberal white writers and showrunners virtue signal against racism using heavy-handed dialogue and caricatures of white racists, but don't even realize they're actually being racist by insisting that every story involving a black person has to be about race. And then they top it off by playing up a racist stereotype. I'm talking about about the fact that the writers had John's parents train him by dropping him off in the most dangerous neighborhood the writers could think of - a black ghetto!! Lol.

Besides, according to the show dialogue, if 1996 was so dangerous for black people due to racism shouldn't his parents have dropped him off in an affluent neighborhood full of privileged white people as a way to train fear out of him?

Anyway, this was an interesting episode and adds more depth to John so that he's not so one dimensional.

---

Vanessa Baden Kelly, writer of the episode, is





Black

Stinks in here

Saxsoon said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Ok, so just watched the episode. I think the funniest thing is that these liberal white writers and showrunners virtue signal against racism using heavy-handed dialogue and caricatures of white racists, but don't even realize they're actually being racist by insisting that every story involving a black person has to be about race. And then they top it off by playing up a racist stereotype. I'm talking about about the fact that the writers had John's parents train him by dropping him off in the most dangerous neighborhood the writers could think of - a black ghetto!! Lol.

Besides, according to the show dialogue, if 1996 was so dangerous for black people due to racism shouldn't his parents have dropped him off in an affluent neighborhood full of privileged white people as a way to train fear out of him?

Anyway, this was an interesting episode and adds more depth to John so that he's not so one dimensional.

---

Vanessa Baden Kelly, writer of the episode, is





Black

---

Oh hey, and the showrunner and creator who has total input on every single episode is white. Do you think these creators and showrunners just come up with the show premise and then sit back and have zero input on the scripts? Do you think these episodes get made without every single aspect going through them? Do you think Lindelof just randomly pulled her name out of a hat to write this episode?

The point still stands - black or white, the writer of this episode had the mom talk about how dangerous it is for black people to be black because of white people, and then as a test of how fearless her son is they dropped him off in a black neighborhood.

FWIW this show isn't really that "politically charged" at this point.

I'm really liking this show.

I know absolutely nothing about Green Lantern lore, and that's fine with me. I'll just take the show as it comes. It doesnt matter to me if it's following the comics, I just want an entertaining story...and so far it has been.

I understand some of the complaints, about John's mom. However....I didn't really view it as the writers trying to push a narrative. It's not really a stretch to think a black woman in 2016 would hold these type of views. She feels slighted. Slighted because of her background/race and slighted because her husband was passed over, and she's going to make absolute sure John isn't overlooked and is everything they want him to be. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter...it simply illustrates why she was so motivated to raise John the way she did, and why John is the way he is today.

I'll also say, I didnt really think of them as sympathetic characters. His mom was a borderline lunatic. What mom would tell the dad to shoot an apple off the kids' head?...or drop them off in the ghetto at night? The dad lost his chance at the ring, and turned into an alcoholic loser for a while.

And I didnt think anything of the compound of conspiracy Cowboys. It's rural Nebraska. Who else would have a compound out in the country? And they've told us that there is more to their story (the secrecy, training, funds, weapons, and the advanced tech they have access to, etc). I'm looking forward to learning more about them.

I also like how they are rolling out the story. Hal's the hero. But he's a turd, who I'm still rooting for. I'm also rooting for John, though it seems like they're going to be on opposite sides of the fence soon. Everything else is a giant mystery, wrapped up in a bunch of questions. It's got me interested to find out the answers.

Quote:

---

I understand some of the complaints, about John's mom. However....I didn't really view it as the writers trying to push a narrative. It's not really a stretch to think a black woman in 2016 would hold these type of views. She feels slighted. Slighted because of her background/race and slighted because her husband was passed over, and she's going to make absolute sure John isn't overlooked and is everything they want him to be. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter...it simply illustrates why she was so motivated to raise John the way she did, and why John is the way he is today.

---

I'm liking it to. However wouldn't John Sr have been passed over around 1996 or earlier?

So her rage and psychotic behavior raising John Jr would have started long before 2016.