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

Thank you, SSAV, yes that is exactly what I meant, I thought I explained it better in my edit....but sometimes I can miss the mark....lol. And as far as my comments, I'm not mad or upset with anyone here, it's really not about that....I am just one that likes everything out on the table, so really it was just to say "this is my truth" I don't mean it to say anyone else's truth for them is wrong. So if it came off as I'm right, your wrong....and I'm going to say it till you agree with me, then I apologize. I may not agree with people on this or that, but everyone is entitled to their opinion and that is a no-brainer for me. I will however, strongly disagree when I see the need to.....and I will call it as I see it. And once again I apologize for not explaining it better, but I was trying to get my point across in as few words as possible. SSAV your explanation is straight out of one of my gender equality lectures.....loved your explanation, and I LOOOOOVE Ted Talks, I can spend hours watching them on YouTube. Ok done....

Carry on.....?

@Romulus - not to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like the suit might just be the straw that broke the camel's back regarding the show for you??? My straw was broken clear back in Season 2 so, I can sympathize a bit.

I've said it before that I'm not one who has been deeply entrenched in the comic history lore of Supergirl or really any of the comics. As a child I read them, but didn't really get attached to them deeply. And since the suit change news came about, I've really tried to think about my own attachment to traditions and how I might feel if something I felt so strongly about changed in order to not try to pass judgement on someone else too quickly. The only thing I immediately came up with is when I was younger - I'm from Iowa and 6-player girl's basketball was a tradition that went back for years. And when they wanted to switch to 5 player ball during my prime high school years, I was adamant that it would be the worst thing for Iowa girl's basketball ever. It's all I ever knew and so I was completely opposed even though realistically, it meant more scholarship opportunities for Iowa girls post high school. Well, needless to say, after not switching during high school and then playing 5 player in college, I looked back and shamelessly shook my head at my earlier refusal for not wanting to change.

I know it's not the same, but sometimes change is necessary for growth and we can't always see the benefits of it while we're immersed into the thick of it all. And, you may not ever be in a position where you can look back and see how it wasn't a detriment, but hopefully it will not distract you from something that sounds as though you love.

I'm completely okay with pants, for reasons I stated on the News Page. But, like Romulus mentioned, I am not a fan of the design - both because it's too generic, but also because it's too similar to Superman's. And if it weren't for the fact that the show seems to be insistent on creating a Supergirl that is mostly just a female version of Superman in the stories, relationships and characters that they choose to use, it probably wouldn't bother me. So, yeah, that is the only thing that irks me in the least bit about the suit.

The pant-suit look is a reasonable attire - many athletes, both female and male, use a similar design to help them go faster and to be less restrictive/distracting for them during competition. So, as a tactical piece, it completely makes sense. However, they could have easily added more detail to make the suit more unique to Supergirl and still not have it be a skirt. And no, maybe it wouldn't be a suit that has ever been shown in the comics for her, but I really don't know why we couldn't expect the suit, along with the stories, to be changed to help evolve the character.

As far as the show ending well, the bar for success at the CW seems to be set at a level that is pretty easily attainable. And if poor writing and production hasn't sunk the show by now, I'm fairly certain that a suit change won't do it.

I will miss the iconic red skirt. Heck, I was upset when they took the red trunks away from Superman.

Fact is though, it was designed with LA shoots in mind, not Vancouver.

The new suit looks fine to me. It is a step down and somewhat genericized. But it is about as good as I could reasonably expect for a radical redesign. And let's be real; the character has suffered some severe wardrobe fails over the years. This doesn't come close to the worst Supergirl look.

I remain more concerned about the writing and overall trajectory of the show than I am about the aesthetics.

Better look at the S.....It hasn't changed.

https://twitter.com/TheTitannn/status/1151265475822796800

Better look at the S.....It hasn't changed.

That's the only thing I really wanted.

Another picture in good light. You can see red stitching.

Here's another one.

Here's one with the cape detached. Look how happy she is to have that weight off between takes.

Be careful on the pics, apparently some of Ken's pics were taken off the Canadagraph site without the watermark, he is not a happy camper.

The new boots look more reinforced up top....not floppy like the old boots. I hated that about the old boots.

The new boots look more reinforced up top....not floppy like the old boots. I hated that about the old boots.

So at the knees...maybe a little more padding to do those one knee Cavill landings. As for the cape, I wonder how long it took the designers to change the way the cape gets attached...anything it makes it...a snap.

You're welcome!

This show and the cast in general deserves a proper, heartfelt send-off before Melissa burns out from the excessively heavy, demanding role workload. This will also allow her to be free to decide to start a family and move on to other things. Release her and the cast from their contractual obligations. Now is an excellent time to do it.

Melissa has showed no indication that she wants to or needs to leave the show. Neither has rest of the cast.

It is disrespectful and sexist to suggest that just because she is getting married some time in the near future, she should now be thinking about family. I am sure you didn't mean it so, but it is.

Besides, Melissa already has a family. Chris is an addition to it. She doesn't have to start a new one from scratch. If "starting a family" is a generic usage, it is a generic usage that can be relooked at and amended when it is seen to not make much sense.

Whatever her future plans are--and this may include having kids, or may be going onto other projects--she can do it and I am sure will do it whenever it feels right for her. Until then, she and the cast and the people behind the show will do whatever feels right for them regarding the show.

It may be after this season; it may be after a few more seasons. She may already even be tired of it although the amount of work she and everyone else has put in to actually make it work suggests to me that they want to work on the show.

Still, I may be wrong. However, she hasn't said or even hinted that she is tired of the show; that she wants a release or anything of the sort. That she needs to be released to consider the decision of "starting a family" whatever that implies.

To suggest otherwise and attribute meanings and point out suggestions for her, especially some that are personal, is not very cool!

This show and the cast in general deserves a proper, heartfelt send-off before Melissa burns out from the excessively heavy, demanding role workload. This will also allow her to be free to decide to start a family and move on to other things. Release her and the cast from their contractual obligations. Now is an excellent time to do it.

Melissa has showed no indication that she wants to or needs to leave the show. Neither has rest of the cast.

It is disrespectful and sexist to suggest that just because she is getting married some time in the near future, she should now be thinking about family. I am sure you didn't mean it so, but it is.

Besides, Melissa already has a family. Chris is an addition to it. She doesn't have to start a new one from scratch. If "starting a family" is a generic usage, it is a generic usage that can be relooked at and amended when it is seen to not make much sense.

Whatever her future plans are--and this may include having kids, or may be going onto other projects--she can do it and I am sure will do it whenever it feels right for her. Until then, she and the cast and the people behind the show will do whatever feels right for them regarding the show.

It may be after this season; it may be after a few more seasons. She may already even be tired of it although the amount of work she and everyone else has put in to actually make it work suggests to me that they want to work on the show.

Still, I may be wrong. However, she hasn't said or even hinted that she is tired of the show; that she wants a release or anything of the sort. That she needs to be released to consider the decision of "starting a family" whatever that implies.

To suggest otherwise and attribute meanings and point out suggestions for her, especially some that are personal, is not very cool!

*****

Fair points, my friend, but slightly misguided. Sexism or disrespect is not the point. You may not particularly like my choice of words, but they do convey the concern and sentiment quite effectively. Sometimes a dash of cold water to the face is the only way to convey certain things. Whether it is cool or not to express it this way does not matter in this case. Reality and truth does. Once a tolerance level has been breached, mincing words is not my forte.

I did not imply that she should forcibly or otherwise leave the show for family reasons or that getting married or having children has anything to do with it. It is a statement of fact, cold as it may sound, that this project is immensely time consuming and does impact her personal life in many ways, both positive and negative. I simply stated that given her harried, tired look and the workload she is currently carrying, that the contract should be revisited or terminated (namely; for health and well-being reasons).

It is a personal opinion, of which I am entitled to, to state that I think that the show is or has quickly ran / running its course. Cold, hard viewership numbers, the downward spiral from S1 through 4, and consistently poor episode quality from Seasons 2 through 4 are making this show very difficult to remain loyal to and watch on a regular basis. Don't get me wrong, I still love the show and think the cast and crews are doing exceptional work given everything they're dealing with and I still have a great deal invested in the show as stated in my previous replies to other posters.

What I am implying is that the consistently poor choices made by the PTB over the years regarding direction (and the suit change approval being one of the key ones) is simply part of a growing litany of things that have marred this series. It will be the series' eventual undoing. Whether it happens after Season 5, 6, 7 or thereafter is immaterial. Usually when a show reaches this point - and the show has just crossed that Rubicon - it is better to end it sooner rather than later.

To respond to you point about Melissa and the cast's intentions or feelings regarding continuing the series. It is a fair point that you make, but you must also realise that the actors can't really publicly express their true opinions due to the nature of their contracts and the business they're in. They're all under non-disclosure agreements (gag orders). Melissa and Co. may truly still like their roles, the work and the pay and continued employment, but they're still not really free to express themselves otherwise without major negative studio ramifications that could affect their continued or future employment in the industry.

It is my opinion (and it is simply an opinion), that it would be in the show's interest and for the integrity of the character that the PTB (the brass) end it before it burns itself out or becomes increasingly unwatchable such as Arrow for the past few seasons and The Flash for at least the past two.

And, in closing, what is right for the show may not necessarily be right for the actors. Her opinions, needs and overall position in the show certainly matter, but hers are not the exclusive deciding factor. She is not in the executive cadre (that's Berlanti, Schechter, the showrunners, and the CW / WB top brass), and many of the decisions that have come down since Season 2 have been, quite frankly, damaging and detrimental to the show and the nature and integrity of the character.

@SSAV and @Kelly:

Thank you for your insights and comments. I will address them quickly to keep the dull roar down.

1) Stereotypical assumptions - no. I would ask the same of male actors. It's just that society in general skews the responses / reactions that way. Heck, I'd ask any male lead the same thing and if they balked, I'd rake 'em over the coals. Twice as hard.

2) Starting a family - this was added simply because Melissa has already stated this desire in an interview. I am only giving a valid set of reasons why she may wish to opt out of SG after this season. Again, like my previous point, I'd ask the same of male actors. Given the huge workload, and increasingly inherent problems with the show, I simply stated that she might consider this option. It's not a demand, nor an assumption that she will or won't do this.

@SSAV and @Kelly:

Thank you for your insights and comments. I will address them quickly to keep the dull roar down.

1) Stereotypical assumptions - no. I would ask the same of male actors. It's just that society in general skews the responses / reactions that way. Heck, I'd ask any male lead the same thing and if they balked, I'd rake 'em over the coals. Twice as hard.

2) Starting a family - this was added simply because Melissa has already stated this desire in an interview. I am only giving a valid set of reasons why she may wish to opt out of SG after this season. Again, like my previous point, I'd ask the same of male actors. Given the huge workload, and increasingly inherent problems with the show, I simply stated that she might consider this option. It's not a demand, nor an assumption that she will or won't do this.

So, when they made changes to Flash's costume, you automatically assumed he would be leaving the show soon to have a family????? Really????

It's not about "asking" the question.....it is about the "automatic go to" in this case. NO ONE, (well some called foul on the suit changes for Flash, yes) automatically had the "thinking" whelp this is the end of that and I bet he wants to have a family.

What interview did she state wanting a family with Chris, the only time I've seen her asked about a family was the interview on Kelly Ripa's show (don't remember which co-host she had at the time) and was asked that and she said she had children.....her dogs.

@Kelly replied:

"So, when they made changes to Flash's costume, you automatically assumed he would be leaving the show soon to have a family????? Really????

It's not about "asking" the question.....it is about the "automatic go to" in this case. NO ONE, (well some called foul on the suit changes for Flash, yes) automatically had the "thinking" whelp this is the end of that and I bet he wants to have a family. "

******

Thanks for the questions.

Not to be rude, and forgive me if it appears so, but it's a gargantuan no on all counts. Please do not make assumptions or jump to conclusions or try to put words in my mouth in this matter. The "automatic go to" in this case is of your narrow interpretation of my postings, not my intent, assumptions about, or line of thinking. You're looking for a convenient bogeyman or scapegoat where one does not exist. This is your reflex "go to" assumption reaction showing, not mine.

Since I don't watch the Flash as a point (it is truly a chore to sit through - worse in many respects than SG) and cannot stand Arrow for a variety of reasons, your assumptions about them have little bearing. If I was a fan of the show(s), and having seen what I already have of them, they've been thoroughly ditched. I have a hard time enough with them when they are in the crossovers. They do absolutely nothing for me, and as it relates to F & A's multiple costume changes, both costumes (and any variations thereof) are write-offs in my view. As it pertains to male cast members wishing to start families, it is a cyclical, counterproductive, and academic argument.

As for the Melissa Benoist bit regarding wanting a family (your "automatic go to" trigger, so to speak), if I recall, the interview may have been when she was married to Blake Jenner and may or may not have been intended in jest. You can score a point here if you wish but the "automatic go to" was not there nor was it implied or intended. I may have misinterpreted what was said and that was an error on my part. They do happen form time to time. No one is perfect.

The bottom line is this: I am not a fan of Melissa's choice for the new suit and think it will be hugely detrimental to the show in the long run for a variety of reasons. I may be proven wrong - and I hope I am - for the sake of the show, but it is a fait accompli (accomplished fact). She will wear it and she will be judged for it (whether it's a positive assessment or a negative one) by the viewers. Whether it empowers her or de-powers her, so to speak, is to be determined. These are current social conventional norms and values, but not necessarily mine. Rail against these injustices if you wish, but not against me.

There’s a lot of history with regards to women fighting for the right to wear pants. Since it helps to personalize history I’ll share some. My mother born in 1950 in Brooklyn, NY wasn’t allowed to wear pants to school until middle school. She was one of the girls who fought for that right. The character Supergirl was created when girls like my mom were expected to dress a certain way but even then they were fighting against that. Unfortunately girls are still fighting for the right to wear what they want and be comfortable. My cousin’s 14 year old daughter was dresscoded last school year for wearing a tank top. She was told her top was distracting to her male classmates. She appealed her suspension because she didn’t want it on her record and the schoolboard found the teacher had misinterpreted the school’s dress code. That’s right over 55 years after my mom fought for the right to wear pants to school her great niece is still fighting to wear comfortable cloths. Stories of girls getting sent home from school and being told their cloths are distracting to boys are unfortunately not uncommon. I have yet to find one story of a boy being sent home for a dress code violation. I have no problem with a school having a dress code but the fact is many of them place more restrictions on girls than boys and girls are far more likely to be the targets of enforcement. Melissa wanting to wear pants as Supergirl but wearing pants/skirts/dresses as Kara sends a positive message to girls. That message chose cloths that are comfortable and fit the situation not what others think you should wear.

The bottom line is this: I am not a fan of Melissa's choice for the new suit and think it will be hugely detrimental to the show in the long run for a variety of reasons. I may be proven wrong - and I hope I am - for the sake of the show, but it is a fait accompli (accomplished fact). She will wear it and she will be judged for it (whether it's a positive assessment or a negative one) by the viewers. Whether it empowers her or de-powers her, so to speak, is to be determined. These are current social conventional norms and values, but not necessarily mine. Rail against these injustices if you wish, but not against me.

@ Romulus please be aware when you say things like this it makes you seem at best out of touch. It’s that attitude that’s caused the pushback in this thread. It’s of course your right to have any values you chose. I ask you to think about how those values make you look and if that’s the image you’re proud to project.

On the topic of actresses getting asked about their plans to start a family that’s not something that should be asked in jest it’s just rude. If I asked a stranger, coworker, or acquaintance about their plans to start a family that would be considered incredibly rude. To reporters aren’t the actresses they interview strangers, colleagues, or at best acquaintances. For decades actresses like Melissa put up with this nonsense. When actresses and some actors pushed back the outcome wasn’t reporters asking the actors too it was dropping the question. So it’s fine to say well just ask everyone and that makes it ok but in fact that’s not what happened.

@Brierrose wrote:

"@ Romulus please be aware when you say things like this it makes you seem at best out of touch. It’s that attitude that’s caused the pushback in this thread. It’s of course your right to have any values you chose. I ask you to think about how those values make you look and if that’s the image you’re proud to project. "

*****

Fair point. Well taken, but do not bring pride into it. The type of attitude that has caused the pushback and sharp reactions is the over-reaction of some users to it. Old-fashioned values are not "bad" or "good." Hard work, decency, fairness, and goodwill toward others are old-fashioned and "out of touch." Do you dismiss them as weak or out of place in today's world? Many of the PC and equality debates and current ideology would tend to project that impression. And that is why it doesn't have widespread support across genders.

Many males would love to lend a helping hand (and many do) to right the ship and correct social injustices, so to speak, but they continually get slapped away as misguided, old-fashioned, out of touch or weak by the very people they're trying to help. And, please don't begin to bring in the "toxic male masculinity" or "condescending male" red herring into it because that would disingenuous and a massive fallacy at best. Any single mother with male children will tell you this, female empowered or otherwise.

It was a male, not a female, who made a successful pitch to WB back in 2007 to get this character to the screen with the vast majority of the attributes we see on TV today. Who do you think made the pitch?

The fact that Melissa chose/chooses to wear pants isn't really the issue. She can wear whatever she pleases, but aesthetically and visually speaking, the changes to SG's costume are totally rotten. As Kara Danvers it works very well and is within character. It projects confidence and ability. Most females can relate to this. As the Supergirl character, it does not mesh. It eliminates her femininity and genericises her at best. Don't shoot me for saying being feminine isn't "good" or "bad", it simply is. Gender exists for a reason (be it by creation or evolution - you choose).

In all honesty, I'd have the same reaction to Arrow if he decided to don a tutu or if the Flash opted for frills (admittedly, it might be fun to see but it would not be within character or really workable). It does not work. Instead of a lead superhero who happens to be female and empowered, we're presented with an androgynous video game version of the character. If that's what she wishes to project, she will, and it may or may not work. The current iteration of Wonder Woman works because she combines femininity and power. Captain Marvel, despite being financially successful, really kinda does the opposite.

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the comments and somewhat heated exchanges. Very informative. It has added a new perspective on things.

Here are my final thoughts (fwiw) regarding the changes:

1) The new suit does not / will not work as intended on the TV show version because this character iteration was never supposed to go this far. It was supposed to be a launch point project between the old-fashioned world and the new one. The addition of pants should not be used to fix or patch up an already structurally-inconsistent version of the character and wonky TV show.

2) The pants version of the character will work (if handled properly and with a better overall colour / design scheme) in the proposed film version of the character. That is, if the suit with pants is used from the get-go and not as an add-on or remedy to an already inconsistency-riddled project. If they go with it from the beginning, it will work.

You see, the horse should go before the cart. This is not too hard to figure out.

The type of attitude that has caused the pushback and sharp reactions is the over-reaction of some users to it. Old-fashioned values are not "bad" or "good." Hard work, decency, fairness, and goodwill toward others are old-fashioned and "out of touch." Do you dismiss them as weak or out of place in today's world? Many of the PC and equality debates and current ideology would tend to project that impression. And that is why it doesn't have widespread support across genders.

Many males would love to lend a helping hand (and many do) to right the ship and correct social injustices, so to speak, but they continually get slapped away as misguided, old-fashioned, out of touch or weak by the very people they're trying to help...

The path to gender equality should never be at the expense of another's and it is paramount that all genders be recognized as important components, with equal value, in that pursuit. That said, there are many reasons why social equality doesn't have widespread support across genders and this feeling by some that you mention may be a part of the reason, but in no means would I argue that it is the reason.

We are a society that loves our labels as a go-to for communication across mediums, but the problem that arises out of relying on this as a means of expression is that our intent gets blurred and dismissed in the process. I agree with you that values such as hard work, decency, fairness and goodwill are important and that yes, those values have been a part of many cultures since societies began forming. But, those are human values not values that should be credited to one generation or another and as such should continue as long as humans continue to exist.

As Kara Danvers it works very well and is within character. It projects confidence and ability. Most females can relate to this. As the Supergirl character, it does not mesh. It eliminates her femininity and genericises her at best. Don't shoot me for saying being feminine isn't "good" or "bad", it simply is. Gender exists for a reason (be it by creation or evolution - you choose).

Yes, gender exists for a reason, a biological reason that's necessarily for continuation of population growth and avoidance of human extinction. That has absolutely nothing to do with social norms such as clothing that was assigned to one gender by another based on the assigning gender's preference. In fact, if you examine ancient history, both men and women used to wear the same attire and at one point, no matter if you follow creation or evolution, clothing wasn't even utilized.

On the other side of the conversation, I don't agree with Melissa and/or the producers comment that not wearing a skirt makes one more adult-like. Again, that is a misconception stemmed out of a bias of relying too much on one's inner social group. In my opinion, it's a very superficial belief to think that clothing in any form defines one's attributes and capabilities as a human being. That example is just one in the show's approach that teeters between wanting to be a vehicle for social messaging yet still relying so heavily on surface level, unoriginal, socially defined labels and values in its story-telling that limits them from actually having any real relevance or credibility.

@Sully,

Very good points. Note taken. But, given that we're all living within artificial socially defined parameters that have been created over centuries, you have to work with what you've got. If you intend to blow up / dismantle something, at least have a solid idea that is actually workable, palatable, and able to be implemented without resorting to soft reboots every year. (I.e. end this iteration / interpretation / show tinkering now and then produce a proper movie in 2021-2022 with said changes - with a different, fresh cast and iteration / interpretation from the get-go).

And, I agree with your point about the suit being adult bit. Again, it's a Hollywood interpretation and a particular agenda at play and they're not always exceptionally astute or on-point in this regard. In many respects, they're "old-fashioned" and "out of touch" with many issues. They try to be on-point, true, but sometimes (in this case, more often than not) the message gets lost in translation / interpretation and implementation.

There is going to be times where it looks like that for gender equality it is at the expense of the other, simply because the other for centuries has had the upper hand. In this country it has only been 100 years of Women having the right to vote, and we are "just now" getting solid representation in our government. So please, do not talk to me about........oooooh, I call foul because you say you want equality, and it is at my expense as a man. Um, nooooo......just having to push back because it has been a full on battle to even get to where we are now, and still FAAAAAAAAAAAAR from being equal in many areas of society. So, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy where that is concerned. We are not going to gain equality without men losing something, sorry......it is just how it is. That loss is not something that degrades men, that is not what is happening. That loss is simply women gaining the power to speak for themselves, to make decisions for themselves, to be given the right to change things because they see and feel the need to do so. The equality comes with allowing change, it isn't about taking something away...it is about giving something back that wasn't yours to begin with.

There is going to be times where it looks like that for gender equality it is at the expense of the other, simply because the other for centuries has had the upper hand. In this country it has only been 100 years of Women having the right to vote, and we are "just now" getting solid representation in our government. So please, do not talk to me about........oooooh, I call foul because you say you want equality, and it is at my expense as a man. Um, nooooo......just having to push back because it has been a full on battle to even get to where we are now, and still FAAAAAAAAAAAAR from being equal in many areas of society. So, I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy where that is concerned. We are not going to gain equality without men losing something, sorry......it is just how it is.

I agree but think the last bit needs clarification. What men need to “lose” is the belief they are entitled to something because of their gender. I think most would agree that belief was false in the first place. Women are demanding men let go of that perception. 100 years ago when women in the US were enfranchised many men and yes some women thought it would be the country’s downfall, clearly it wasn’t. Every fight for equal rights requires the privileged to see enough value in equality and the non-privileged as humans to give up their perceived superiority for the greater good. That’s a necessary but difficult thing to do. Change, particularly if we weren’t the one who initiated it, is something humans in general are resistant to especially if we perceive we’re losing something. Nostalgia for the way things were when we grew up is a real and powerful feeling. It might help if men could flip the script and realize they are also gaining something, a more free society.