Excuses, Excuses, Excuses.

DC's continued no-use policy for Batman and Superman in their television shows is abhorrently stupid to me, always has been - more-so for Superman, especially in terms of the "Smallville" series finale which desperately called for Tom Welling to don the full suit after ten years of build-up, which didn't happen, and currently in terms of the "Supergirl" television series where Clark's absence seems to bring much more un-needed attention unto itself than it would've if he were simply seen from time to time as a real character (and by "seen", I don't mean in corny glimpses or cheap silhouetted cameos).

The problem with having Superman off doing his own thing on "Supergirl" is that it raises the question of if he's doing more important things than the protagonist of the series is which, paradoxically, overshadows Kara anyway. That very problem is the reason why Eric Kripke killed John Winchester off rather quickly on "Supernatural" and it benefited the story immensely, not that I'm suggesting that they should kill Clark off to fix the problem on the "Supergirl" show but they could eliminate the "overshadowing" issue by having him appear simply as a supporting character, even if it's just as Clark Kent in a professional sense as a reporter.

On a larger note, DC's long-standing reasoning for their asinine no-Superman/no-Batman television policy are two things:

1. They claim that they're attempting not to confuse casual fans by having two actors portray the same character in different forms of media simultaneously.

2. They claim that they're not attempting to connect the TV shows to the films because it'll stifle creative freedom for the writers and directors on projects for both mediums.

I, personally, call bullshit on both of those points because:

1. While they're claiming to not want to confuse the fans with two different portrayals, they went ahead and hired two actors to portray Barry Allen (The Flash) separately in the films and on the TV shows at the same time.

2. A connected universe wouldn't stifle creativity whatsoever, not if you know what you're doing. Just look at the competition: It hasn't stopped "Daredevil" or "Jessica Jones" from telling phenomonal stories on Netlfix while being in the same universe as "The Avengers" on the big screen.

And of course, DC aren't the first I've heard complain about the possibility of their characters sharing a universe neither: I remember McG whining about "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" outshining "Terminator: Salvation" in the media some time in 2009 too. And, in both cases, both parties sound(ed) like lazy people who didn't want to do the hard work of world-building and world-connecting the way that Marvel has been able to, successfully, with their ever-expanding Cinematic Universe (which, ironically, stretches across all forms of media).

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. I enjoy cohesiveness.