Fireheart wrote:

I was forced to do some costume tricks, to disguise the not-childlike chest in CoH.

Yeah I also messed around with various ways to "hide" the not-childlike female chest in CoH and some of them worked better than others. The point was that we shouldn't have -needed- to do that and it sounds like we won't have to use those tricks in CoT.

Kaemgen wrote:

While I don't necessarily agree with the arguments for not allowing child like looks, I can see the concerns.
Personally I'm more in favor of expecting appropriate behavior and slapping down those who don't live up to it rather than censoring the masses to enforce it from the get go.

We already crossed that bridge back in CoH. It was trivially easy to create pre-teen male characters in CoH and the only thing that held back realistic looking younger females was the fact you were forced (whether you wanted to or not) to make them in such a way that they looked like they already had big boob-jobs. Frankly if I'm going to make a 12 year old girl in CoT I'd rather make her look like a 'typical' 12 year old instead of one that looks like she's sporting silicone-based Double D's on her chest.

P.S. Before anyone gets picky about it I know full well that in real life some 12 year old girls have already hit puberty and naturally possess relatively large breasts. But obviously what I'm talking about here is the ability to create such a character with a statistically-reasonable flat chest. With this option available I see CoT as the clear improvement over CoH.

Younger characters would be good for me. My daughter is turning into quite a gamer and would almost certainly want to make an avatar similar to herself.

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

Plus, I don't think any of us wants to relive the horror that was having to gaze upon Baby New Year.

He was a temporal anomaly. A fully matured baby.

A creepy, creepy temporal anomaly.

Saving baby new year was one of my favorite things during the holiday events. I did it repeatedly.

I always imagined he had a really deep voice and a Brooklyn accent.

"'Ey! I'm toddlin' here!"

[youtube]d_VKwvhUSkM[/youtube]

It's happened before...
http://i.imgur.com/FVGGchb.jpg

ConundrumofFurballs wrote:

Redlynne wrote:

Besides, if nothing else, we want the Avatar Builder to be capable of making NPC children to help populate some areas of the city (schools, public parks, that sort of thing).

I must identify a specific requirement we have on the development side of things, here.

It was decided very early on that we will not have any true children in the game, at least not combat NPCs. We are not intending to restrict PCs, but NPC children will not be able to engage in combat, or defeated. [b]While we will have children in certain situations, they won't be anywhere in the open world where they can be killed by a GM spawning, nor will they be able to be attacked in missions and the like.[/b]There are a number of reasons for this, and I don't recall them off the top of my head. However, it is a policy that was enacted many, many moons ago, and one that we still plan to use on the NPC side.

Just wanted to clarify that point.

That's fine, but for what it's worth I don't think Redlynne was suggesting having "killable" NPC children in her post you replied to.

If you'll recall CoH handled the "problem" of what to do about children by literally only allowing one actual child in the entire game (named [url=https://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Penny_Preston]Penny Preston[/url]) and she was an unkillable NPC mission contact. While that certainly solved the "no killable children" issue it also left the city in a weird "[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men]Children of Men[/url]" situation where you had an entire otherwise normal human city with no children, a very unnatural situation to say the least.

That's why I'd have absolutely no problem with there being a handful of children (as both you and Redlynne suggested) that exist in the game so that things don't seem weirdly childless. Do whatever you have to do to make them completely unkillable and/or unharmable in any way but at least have them in the game to some degree.

yeah civillians in general just sort of booked it whenever they saw an enemy

was Penelope yin a child or teenager my mind is freezing up ?!

Lin Chiao Feng wrote:

Mind-Freeze wrote:

was Penelope yin a child or teenager my mind is freezing up ?!

Some kind of teenager when she appeared as a contact, and over 18 when she reappeared as a hero, IIRC.

I forgot about Penelope but yeah by the time she became an "active hero" they essentially made it clear she was "upgraded" to adult status.

My sister was playing Second Life one day and she was showing me something in the game and this creepy child came running from around the corner it scared the hell out of me. So I would not like child characters please they are tiny and creepy.

Empyrean wrote:

Wolfgang, don't EVER play The Secret World :P

I did, and I stopped playing because it was too creepy running through areas by myself with zombies all over the place.

Wolfgang8565 wrote:

My sister was playing Second Life one day and she was showing me something in the game and this creepy child came running from around the corner it scared the hell out of me. So I would not like child characters please they are tiny and creepy.

Aw come on... they just want to play with you...

[youtube=200x200]qr0SjfvBAnk[/youtube] [youtube=200x200]wPJFxS3WuRo[/youtube]

Fireheart wrote:

Child Endangerment is a simple path to losing a T-rating. Also likely to have Me unwilling to be involved, so this decision is a good thing.
It's one of my arguments against Anime, reckless danger to children, child soldiers, children forced to face problems that would traumatize adults, children in 'adult situations', children being killed, children killing adults, all acceptable in the genre. Collateral damage from the Cult of Youth.
Be Well!
Fireheart

For what it's worth I've never seriously expected the folks at MWM to ever go out of their way to highlight any violence against children specifically. I'd obviously draw the line if they ever had a child be the direct targeted victim of a one-on-one type attack. However it probably wouldn't bother me that much if say a random Godzilla-type giant monster rampaged through the city and had ALL sorts of civilians (including children) running around in chaos.

[youtube=500x300]OX2VaVtFYfs[/youtube]

Fireheart wrote:

Child Endangerment is a simple path to losing a T-rating. Also likely to have Me unwilling to be involved, so this decision is a good thing.
It's one of my arguments against Anime, reckless danger to children, child soldiers, children forced to face problems that would traumatize adults, children in 'adult situations', children being killed, children killing adults, all acceptable in the genre. Collateral damage from the Cult of Youth.
Be Well!
Fireheart

So, you don't care for Harry Potter? Percy Jackson? Hunger Games? Battle Royale? Teen Titans?

I love my forever 16 weapon of war :)

Fireheart wrote:

Brand X wrote:

So, you don't care for Harry Potter? Percy Jackson? Hunger Games? Battle Royale? Teen Titans?

Well, of those, Harry Potter is the only one I've read. Most of those people are teens, though. I'm glad you have a youthful outlook. I let most of my immortals reach their 20s, before I stop their time.

Yeah but everyone knows that despite the proper ages of the characters in those stories (i.e. teenagers) that by the time any of them get the "Hollyweird" treatment they're usually played by actors that are 5 or 10 years older IRL. It's always weird to me to see "high school students" played by 25 year olds. That's kind of what made the Harry Potter movies unique because the kids were played by fairly age appropriate "kids" from the very first movie.

desviper wrote:

Taking the Skyrim route on kids? How disappointing :/
Even the Goonies put kids in a pretty perilous situation, Home Alone? I don't think threatening kids is really outside a T rating.
Chopping little timmy's head off is pretty M, but we're not having any gore.

I consider myself a fairly mature libertarian-leaning adult open to seeing just about anything in a video game but even I don't think I'd want to see children directly shot or assaulted by "evil-doers" in CoT. I agree seeing that might sadly be "realistic" (especially with what just happened in Las Vegas for example) but this game can be "real" enough without having to take it to that particular extreme.

Like I said before I'd have no problem with crowds of people (including children) getting chaotically trampled by giant monsters because after all the poor monsters probably aren't doing it on purpose - the stupid people are just getting in their way. The main difference is whether the game would highlight harm to children specifically. I just don't need to have that kind of violence shoved "in my face" so to speak.

Yeah - I can see Children as NPCs (I mean we had Penelope Yin and Penny Preston in CoH, and various "kid heroes" in comics), but I really don't expect to see (or want to see) kids being "killed" by characters or NPCs. If I recall correctly, the early Fallout games ran into issues with being able to kill kids in-game - I would imagine MWM wants to avoid the same problems.

As for child PCs, as others have said - if the character creator is good enough this shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Brand X wrote:

Yeah, not looking for gore. Also, really not looking to see children mass murdered, I'm just not against the idea of some villain taking kids hostage. Or killed really...Spawn comes to mind.

ConundrumofFurballs already covered the fundamental difference between simply "taking children hostage" and "showing visual bodily harm done to children". Again I think the key is whether the game actually [b]shows[/b] kids being individually hurt/killed or not. If the game [b]implies[/b] that villains are killing kids (i.e. gunshots from the next room where you somehow already knew a kid was being held captive) would probably be just about at the "edge" of what they could get away with.

Brand X wrote:

I'm just not against the idea of some villain taking kids hostage.

This is probably something where we can just use a checklist as a kind of informal poll of whether Players would consider some kinds of content "over the line" in various ways in terms of story content.

Children being kidnapped? (Y/N)
Children being held hostage? (Y/N)
Children being ransomed? (Y/N)
Children being threatened? (Y/N)

All of those options have additional permutations concerning whether or not the situation occurs "on camera" or not. Basically the difference between a threatening letter promising unpleasantness if conditions are not met (an "off camera" story setup) versus watching a live television feed where the threatening is happening (very much an "on camera" story setup). I suspect that people would be more ... forgiving ... of scenarios in a game like City of Titans if the ... unpleasantness ... of these particular themes and tactics were done more as an "off camera" sort of thing, rather than being something that the Player gets to "witness happening live" with almost no way to make it stop. The difference would be that the "off camera" setup provides the necessary What's My Motivation?™ impetus for the Player to do whatever it is that they're going to do (hero or villain), while the "on camera" setup can strike way too close to home for a number of people who may have had traumatic events happen in their own lives and thus encountering something akin to that trauma happening inside of a game like City of Titans would be Over The Line.

This would therefore be one of those Where Are The Boundaries? types of questions, where ultimately you have to decide what the Limits Of Good Taste are, essentially. Comic book "drama" for all intents and purposes requires Jeopardy in some form or fashion (see: Villain's Death Traps For Heroes), but there are different ways to do that, some of which can be clever, and some of which are just tacky and offensive (if not insulting and/or unhelpfully provocative).

Li'l Thunder wrote:

Fireheart wrote:

It's one of my arguments against Anime, reckless danger to children, child soldiers, children forced to face problems that would traumatize adults, children in 'adult situations', children being killed, children killing adults, all acceptable in the genre. Collateral damage from the Cult of Youth.

To be fair to anime, this is a cultural divide between the west and Japan. In Japan, they expect children to be much more self-reliant and learn adult responsibility at a much earlier age than we do in most of the west. Kindergarteners commonly walk to school unaccompanied. 11 and 12 year olds move out and live by themselves. No really, they do. It's not like, an every day occurrence, but it's not uncommon either, due to the way their primary schooling is structured. Middle schools are very competitive and if your kid gets into a really good one and it's far from where you live, you often get them a very small dorm-style apartment near that school. They're still being supported by their parents financially--though many also will get part-time jobs to help their parents with the cost--but they live on their own.
That's why so many anime and manga have 11 or 12 year old protagonists striking out on their own.

I'm no "social expert" on Japanese children by any stretch of the imagination but I have traveled to Japan for work several dozen times in the last 15+ years and from what little I've seen I'd have to pretty much agree with everything Li'l Thunder has said here about them.

I've seen young-ish looking kids on their own responsibly going to school or out shopping or whatever with very little if any "adult supervision". Considering that most of Japan is essentially "crime free" (at least when compared to average cities in the US) I can understand why their culture in general feels more secure about letting their kids go out and do things that might be considered relatively unimaginable in other countries. As a specific "for instance" I know a guy over in Sasebo, Japan who started to work at a bar like the day he turned 18 (might have actually been a bit younger because he seriously to this day only looks like he's about 16) but within a few years the bar owner basically made him part-owner/manager of the place. Things like that are apparently not unusual at all in Japan.

I honestly don't see it as some kind of "failure of youth culture" or whatever Fireheart was trying to imply with that. I think the Japanese simply consider their children to be more mature relative to their chronological ages than perhaps most western cultures do. After all the US in recent years has actually gone the other direction with that and started to treat their 30-year-old live-at-home millennial adult offspring as "kids" longer and longer. TBH, I prefer the Japanese "model" for their children to the US one.

Fireheart wrote:

Um, that's not what I said! Nothing about failures.

In our own culture, not so long ago, a twelve-year-old would have been considered marriageable. I certainly went to school with a couple of girls whose bodies were ready for motherhood at that age. On my grandfather's farm, my mother was driving tractors and hazardous machinery at that age, My argument is not that pre-teens are not capable of doing meaningful work, or of taking care of themselves.

I only objected to the extremely grim and deadly and socially fraught situations that some media puts these young people in. Harry Potter saves the universe, Again, but at least he has some caring adults he can depend on. That's not the case in a lot of those other stories, where the only adults are the Enemy.

So, I just used those examples of 'children in danger' to illustrate my feelings about killing child NPCs. I'm not trying to say that Japanese culture is wrong, or anything like that! There are elements of my own culture that I find alarming, too!

Just seemed like you were characterizing -all- Japanese anime as advocating violence by or against children.

I'll readily admit that -some- Japanese anime is like that. But the interesting thing about Japanese anime (when compared to something like Western 'cartoons') is that the Japanese use anime as a medium to tell all sorts of stories ranging throughout all genres and age groups. In the West animation (thanks to the overwhelming dominance of Disney) is usually assumed to be only for "kids stories" told in a "kid friendly" manner. Sure there are plenty of exceptions to that general mindset (i.e. South Park) but by in large most people in the US rarely consider the possibility that animation does NOT have to be only for kids.

Since the Japanese use anime for all kinds of stories it only stands to reason that at least some of it will skirt the edges of cultural sensibilities where it comes things such as violence by or against children. As you say that doesn't mean that -all- Japanese anime needs to be labeled as "bad". It just means we have to realize that just because it's animation-based doesn't mean it's automatically saddled with any contextual expectations. Just like live action movies can be about -anything- so too can Japanese anime be about any subject good or bad.

I think we generally agree that "overt depictions of violence against (or by) children" would be a "bad thing" for CoT. Having said that it's clear that different cultures IRL can tolerate differing degrees of that. The trend in the US has been to "baby" our kids for longer and longer periods of time so perhaps that's why violence by or against children is perhaps seen as more "shocking" to us than in other cultures like the Japanese. Again not saying the Japanese intrinsically hate their children - just saying they are perhaps not as culturally adverse to seeing them involved in such mature situations.

Lothic wrote:

Lothic wrote:

...I know it's kind of weird to reply to my own post...

As long as you don't start arguing with yourself I think we're OK.

"THE TITANS ARE COMING! THE TITANS ARE COMING!"

Friendly reminder:

City of Heroes did not even get the scaling options to emulate children-sized characters until [i]over a year[/i] after launch.

http://web.archive.org/web/20121025123213/http://na.cityofheroes.com/en/news/game_updates/issue_4/overview.php

Not saying that we can't and/or won't be able to emulate it at CoT launch, but just a look back at history.

Lothic wrote:

Lothic wrote:
Yeah but everyone knows that despite the proper ages of the characters in those stories (i.e. teenagers) that by the time any of them get the "Hollyweird" treatment they're usually played by actors that are 5 or 10 years older IRL. It's always weird to me to see "high school students" played by 25 year olds. That's kind of what made the Harry Potter movies unique because the kids were played by fairly age appropriate "kids" from the very first movie.
I know it's kind of weird to reply to my own post but I just saw on IMDB that today is Melissa Benoist's 29th birthday. Just highlighting the point that "Hollyweird" has no problem with a 29 year old woman playing the role of SuperGIRL. I actually like Melissa's version of Supergirl -despite- the fact that she's practically twice as old as the character is supposed to be. ;)

Actually Lothic, reading this post, makes it sound like you just haven't watched the show.

Melissa is not playing someone twice her age. She's going on her third season of the show, playing a character who was 24 in the first season.

i have just one picture which fits perfectly with child / superheroes and morals :D
[IMG]https://i0.wp.com/nerdbastards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/prv12775_pg1.jpg[/IMG]

TitansCity wrote:

i have just one picture which fits perfectly with child / superheroes and morals :D

[img=200x200]https://i0.wp.com/nerdbastards.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/prv12775_pg1.jpg[/img]

Yeah the entire "foundational joke" behind the Hit-Girl character was the idea that you had this apparently "sweetly innocent" girl who also a super-ninja killing machine who showed no mercy towards the villainous scum she mowed down.

The only real reason the character "worked" at all was that juxtaposition between what society usually expects of a young girl versus the sheer carnage she left in her wake. Think of it this way: If Hit-Girl had been named Hit-Guy and drawn as a 6'4'' 250lbs big beefy guy there would have been nothing uniquely special about him at all.

Lothic wrote:

TitansCity wrote:
The only real reason the character "worked" at all was that juxtaposition between what society usually expects of a young girl versus the sheer carnage she left in her wake. Think of it this way: If Hit-Girl had been named Hit-Guy and drawn as a 6'4'' 250lbs big beefy guy there would have been nothing uniquely special about him at all.

He would be called Deadpool. :)

notears wrote:

Well Kick ass was more capepunk than actual super hero fiction. It was a deconstruction of supers, and Hit Girl was a deconstruction of the child sidekick, who would pretty much grow up around superhero violence all her life. She's supposed to be viewed as more of a tragic figure rather than as a cool one since it was shown how much of tragedy it was that her father took her away from her life just so he can live this power fantasy of his, and the sequel was to show how difficult her life is now because of she never had a proper education and has been killing people all her life. The entire comic book series was to show the dangers of trying apply the simplistic logic of superhero comics to the real world, and how treating complex problems like they have simpler answers is actually making things worse.

Well I guess if you want to dive deeply into the psychoanalytics of the character I suppose you could see her as some kind of post-modern tragic figure. But still the basic "gimmick" behind the character is the fact that no one expects a relatively unimposing girl to be as sadistically cold-blooded as she is about "fighting" crime. Sure it may be tragic but the tragedy involved here would not have been as poignant had the character not been a "little girl".

Fallout1 wrote:

He would be called Deadpool. :)

Eh almost. Sure Hit-Girl has a bit of a "mouth" on her and there's a lot of dark humor surrounding her. But unlike Deadpool she's actually almost morbidly self-serious and doesn't really ever "break the 4th wall" which is pretty much the cornerstone of Deadpool's character. That and she doesn't have any mutant ability to regenerate damage...

Fallout1 wrote:

The Punisher?

I guess if you're desperate to equate Hit-Girl to another character then sure she's probably closer to being a young female "mini-me" version of The Punisher. And again I would stress that's really what her main gimmick is - the only thing that's technically "original" about her character is the fact that she's a young girl doing the same things that other big, burly guys have done before her.

Lothic wrote:

Brand X wrote:
Lothic wrote:
Just highlighting the point that "Hollyweird" has no problem with a 29 year old woman playing the role of SuperGIRL. I actually like Melissa's version of Supergirl -despite- the fact that she's practically twice as old as the character is supposed to be. ;)
Actually Lothic, reading this post, makes it sound like you just haven't watched the show.
Melissa is not playing someone twice her age. She's going on her third season of the show, playing a character who was 24 in the first season.
You must be aware that the TV show likely had to retcon Melissa's version of the character to be 24ish JUST BECAUSE she herself was probably like around 26 or so when the show first started. Melissa's a fine enough actress but it was going to be semi-hard for her (at her actual age) to play a character that was originally meant to be like 10 years younger. Remember the whole premise of having the TV version of the character be a "young single working professional" more or less required them to re-imagine her to be in her twenties because it would've been slightly weird having someone who was like 16 or 17 living on her own in the Big City doing that job at CatCo.
Obviously there have been many versions of the character over the years in the comic books but one of the few things they all pretty much shared in common was the fact that Supergirl was a TEENAGER. The TV show has been relatively unique in resetting the character to be in her mid-twenties.

Yes (though wasn't the rebooted 52 in her 20's at first...no idea...I stopped with the reboot since I liked the previous version and had no intention to support her reboot), but I doubt the reason for making her older was due to the actresses age.

My guess, is they wanted to make her older in the show, so they could set her up in Catco and basically make her a modified Clark Kent.

The movie and the comic might aswell be different pieces of media all together... one was a deconstruction of superheroes while the other was seen as reconstruction of it... many people might not have liked that Big Daddy was that much of a scumbag but I thought it was important to the message of the comic, life doesn't work like a story and bad people don't always look like bad people.

Brand X wrote:

Lothic wrote:

You must be aware that the TV show likely had to retcon Melissa's version of the character to be 24ish JUST BECAUSE she herself was probably like around 26 or so when the show first started. Melissa's a fine enough actress but it was going to be semi-hard for her (at her actual age) to play a character that was originally meant to be like 10 years younger. Remember the whole premise of having the TV version of the character be a "young single working professional" more or less required them to re-imagine her to be in her twenties because it would've been slightly weird having someone who was like 16 or 17 living on her own in the Big City doing that job at CatCo.
Obviously there have been many versions of the character over the years in the comic books but one of the few things they all pretty much shared in common was the fact that Supergirl was a TEENAGER. The TV show has been relatively unique in resetting the character to be in her mid-twenties.

Yes (though wasn't the rebooted 52 in her 20's at first...no idea...I stopped with the reboot since I liked the previous version and had no intention to support her reboot), but I doubt the reason for making her older was due to the actresses age.
My guess, is they wanted to make her older in the show, so they could set her up in Catco and basically make her a modified Clark Kent.

Well first off I said MOST of the versions of Supergirl over the years have established the character as a teenager. TBH like you I have never really paid much attention to the "rebooted 52" stuff so if the character has now been officially aged into her twenties that's simply "the exception that proves the rule" that MOST of the time she's been a teenager. I actually just spent about 15 minutes googling for some official evidence of what the character's age is [b]supposed[/b] to be in the DCnU. The various wikis are of no help with that - the best I came up with is a couple random people chatting in a comic book forum where they "thought" she's now in her early twenties but there were other people in that forum denying that. Apparently no one knows for sure.

As far as the TV show goes it seems pretty obvious they first decided to retcon the character to be in her mid-twenties to allow it to seem PLAUSIBLE she could be a young female professional working at a real adult job and then went out and found an actress who also happened to chronologically be in her mid-twenties so that all of that would make sense. It's still an ironic fact (at least to me) that since MOST of the time Supergirl is a 16-17 year old teenager that now we have a 29 year old WOMAN playing the role. That Hollyweird dichotomy was really all I was trying to point out with all this.

Redlynne wrote:

Lothic, you really need to stop playing that harp.
The actress is 29 after being in the role for 3 years. You're literally complaining about a woman playing a role that was ~2 years younger than the actress' chronological age at the time of her casting. In other words, you're quibbling over a less than +10% variance in the age of the actress and the (supposed) age of the character that she is portraying in THIS show.
You're also completely ignoring the way that the whole "SuperGIRL" thing was handled in the show as an HONEST character development point. Even the character herself objected to being called "SuperGIRL" and was told, point blank, that what she is called isn't up to HER, but was up to the character of Cat Grant ... the Queen of Media™. At no point was the "SuperGIRL" hero identity being passed off as being a teenager within the confines of the show's run. That's just YOU, Lothic, getting up on your high horse and having no idea how to climb down.
I'm sure that you would have been much happier to watch a TV show about a high school "coming of age" Kara Zor-El having to deal with Mean Girls In School™ as the villain of the week, with a season arc about Dating The Cute Guy™ as a recurring subplot, in between going to school and doing homework featuring a 16 year old actress showing how she just can't keep it together and have it all in modern America (but please, anywhere but Kansas, that place has been *done* already). You've made your preferences ABUNDANTLY CLEAR by this point ... so please, put the harp down and try to get off your high horse (if you can). Your demands for perfection are most definitely the enemy of the "good enough" in this case.
As for myself, I enjoy the Supergirl series immensely for what it IS rather than deciding that *I* know what it Should Have Been instead. Probably a side effect of having been a Doctor Who fan for the past 35+ years.

*looking at your post* And you say [b]I'm[/b] taking this too far?

Please... literally [b]EVERYONE[/b] (except you apparently) always laughs at the age-old joke of Hollywierd hiring "twenty-somethings to play teenagers". You ought to take your own advice and take a serious chill-pill here.

P.S. My -only- problem with the Supergirl TV show is that I don't think she should wear the black-ish tights and even I admit that's an incredibly super-trivial nit-pick. *shrugs*

And I believe Lothic has no actual problem with the actress or the show. I expect that all Lothic was doing was pointing out the ironic practice, in visual media, of hiring adults to play the roles of teenagers. There are a mort of hurdles to overcome, in hiring sub-adults. Particularly if you might, possibly, want to show a little skin, sometime. Modern Hollywood would not be able to hire Jodie Foster to play in 'Taxi Driver'.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Fireheart wrote:

And I believe Lothic has no actual problem with the actress or the show. I expect that all Lothic was doing was pointing out the ironic practice, in visual media, of hiring adults to play the roles of teenagers.

Then she chose an extremely poor example to point to that "ironic practice".

It's kinda ironic itself to try and use a movie/series as an example of a specific practice when said practice does not apply to the movie/series used.

I have a suspicion the reason they chose to go with 20-something Supergirl was to steer clear from Smallville with a girl protagonist. Even the character arcs for the protagonist could easily be replaced with 20 something Clark Kent.

Tannim222 wrote:

I have a suspicion the reason they chose to go with 20-something Supergirl was to steer clear from Smallville with a girl protagonist. Even the character arcs for the protagonist could easily be replaced with 20 something Clark Kent.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this but even Tom Welling was 24 years old when Smallville started in 2001. So much for a "teenaged superman" being played by a teenager.

Bottomline as of now there have only been three notable actresses who have played Supergirl in TV or film. Of them:
[list]
[*]Helen Slater was 21 when she played Supergirl in 1984
[*]Laura Vandervoort was 23 when she first played Supergirl in 2007
[*]Melissa Benoist was 26 when she first played Supergirl in 2015
[/list]
I (sadly) suppose I'll have to amazed when/if they ever finally get a teenager to play a character who is a teenager...

In the comics, Supergirl had Streaky, who got his powers from X-Kryptonite, the by-product of Supergirl's attempt to cure Kryptonite poisoning.

Ya. Streaky would have added MUCH more to "Supergirl" than Mon-El did!

It was interesting to me that Kevin Sorbo played "Lar Gand", who was supposed to be Mon-El's father, but was actually Mon-El's real name.

[Superboy found Lar Gand on a Monday, and, figuring that he was Kryptonian, gave him the surname "El", thus creating "Mon-" + "El" = "Mon-El" -- or, as I like to call him, "MonGRel"!!!]

Amerikatt wrote:

Supergirl desperately needs a kitty sidekick who will help her to forget Mon-El!
She should have found a cute orange kitty in that pod rather than that Daxamite clod!
*shreds Mon-El's leftover togs*

I didn't saw the epidose yet !!!!!
:/

You ! Bad cat ! I hate you !!!! ^^

Fireheart wrote:

Lothic wrote:

I (sadly) suppose I'll have to amazed when/if they ever finally get a teenager to play a character who is a teenager...

Mmm, Chloë Moretz in the two Kick Ass movies. However, this could be the exception to the rule.

Turns out if we go back to our discussion about the Japanese they have plenty of -actual- teenagers in their live action anime/manga adaptations. And sure there are always exceptions to the rule even in the US (i.e. Hit-Girl). Bottomline the whole decades-old "twenty-somethings playing teenagers" phenomena might very well be relatively culturally unique to Hollyweird.

But to be perfectly clear about what I was obviously referring to perhaps someday we'll actually see a version of a live action Supergirl played by an actual teenager. *shrugs*

Brand X wrote:

Lothic wrote:

Fireheart wrote:

Mmm, Chloë Moretz in the two Kick Ass movies. However, this could be the exception to the rule.

But to be perfectly clear about what I was obviously referring to perhaps someday we'll actually see a version of a live action Supergirl played by an actual teenager. *shrugs*

Adults playing teenagers who get hot and steamy is different to people than teenagers who get hot and steamy together. If I recall there was a lot of flack for casting Milla Jovovich in Return to the Blue Lagoon. Maybe it was Brooke Shields in the original though. Could be both.

Pretty sure it was both. Also pretty sure Jodie Foster (she was only 14 as a prostitute in Taxi Driver) is still the all-time prime example of that. *shrugs*

Brand X wrote:

I think it has something to do with the ability to work. Children may have limits to the hours they can work. Also, there's the stories they can do.

Also, could be a factor in acting ability. Lots of young actors, quite frankly, suck at acting :p

Sure all those things always make it -harder- to get good teenage actors to play teenaged roles, but not [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_child_actors_from_the_United_States]impossible[/url].

As you yourself just quoted here Chloë Grace Moretz did a pretty good job with Hit-Girl (she was 13 in 2010) and obviously the Harry Potter child actors all started in the first movie pretty close to age-appropriate to their characters (i.e. Daniel Radcliffe was 12 in 2001). Those are just the obvious examples.

I simply think it might be fun to eventually see a live action Supergirl show/movie played by an actual teenager sometime. Is that -really- too much to ask for? ;)