this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
48 points (92.9% liked)
movies
3627 readers
33 users here now
A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
- !television@piefed.social
- !homevideo@feddit.uk
- !mediareviews@lemmy.world
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
Rules
- Be civil
- No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
- Do not spam
- Stay on topic
- These rules will evolve as this community grows
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The character itself is DOA. "It's Superman - but this time it's a girl!!" Um, ok. How's about a character who is their own thing, not just a female version of an originally male character
Congratulations, you have openly admitted that you know nothing about the character.
Is it clueless audience's fault that her superhero name sucks? Because I'm sure I'm not the only one that completely avoids female superhero movies/shows with stupid unoriginal names like "super girl" and "she hulk".
Not sure why you think "supergirl" is any more stupid than "Superman". Less original, sure, but nothing would indicate that a Superman movie would be inherently better/less stupid than a supergirl movie. The supergirl movie also made a point of showing how distinct it was from the Superman movie by not even taking place on the same planet. There was even a clip of her in the Superman movie showing her in direct contrast to him.
It's fine to say the movie sucks, but if an audience is turned away by just her name, I do think there's an element of misogyny there. Makes me wonder if "superboy" would do better instead. The character was imagined at a time when things centered men and so her name is defined by that, but her actions are not just Superman redux. She has her own story, but it's possible her name keeps her in his shadow for general audiences.
Right? I saw the gladiator movie, and I saw the DaVinciCode movie. It's just people in fucking Rome, running and fighting. These people have names, and fucking hair, and ears too. They're the same movie. Such cheese.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergirl
Its seems rather explicit - she was invented because the comic book creators wanted a femme superman - and so copy pasted the idea
Im not saying its right, im actually thinking that it is sexist and a product and fad of its era - and to erase it with retconned lore glosses over the very real human issues we face as a society that dimmenishes femme content as simply masc-in-drag content - im sure the modern movie is more timely and modern in its perspective - but to ignore the origins and further to insult the correct assumption i think is invalid
She has had decades of stories and development since then that have made her distinctly not “Superman, but a girl“
That isn't even the impression the trailer gives.
You don't get it. Their backstory and personality is way below who the character is at the top level. Their name is supergirl, a copy of superman. Their outfit is exactly the same as superman, but now with a skirt. They presumably have a similar origin story of getting their powers from being at least partially kryptonian, with nearly all the same range of powers and weaknesses.
It's lame. Making a female variation of an existing male character is weak at a fundamental level that can't be overcome. A good character is original, not a variation copy
And it’s a woman living in the shadow of a man, which seems completely counterintuitive to supporting women. Like I want it to exist because we absolutely need more feminine voices, faces, and ideas in the comic and movie spaces, but this comes off like opportunistic 1:1 copypasta written by a man and a focus group.
I’ll also preface that I’m not familiar with the Supergirl comics but I’m sure they’re far better and more nuanced. Perhaps the whole point is that she’s taking back a normally masculine symbol and making it her own. But based on what I’ve seen of the film, it’s not doing a stellar job of conveying that.
Yup, supergirl may've been feminist for its time, but at this point in history it's anti-feminist. A woman character should be her own fully original being, not a female variation of an existing man.
Wonder Woman was (is still) feminist for its time. They just had to make it that her only weakness was if she got bound or shackled by a man.
Hah i didn't know about that last part, but yeah exactly perfect example. Wonder Woman is her own original self. And there's plenty more fully originals, Black Widow, Phoenix, Invisible Woman, Storm, Jubilee, Emma Frost, Captain Marvel, Scarlett Witch, Rouge, and on and on.
Did you watch the trailer? They did that. Granted Supergirl is traditionally just Superman-but-a-woman. This version though seems very much her own character. Nothing in common accept the powers.
The name
The costume
The origin story
The type of powers
The type of weaknesses
... It's mostly Superman.
So all the movies about ordinary humans are mostly the same?
If a human character exists and then a sequel human character in the same universe has basically the same:
Name
Costume
Origin story
Powers
Weaknesses
... then that second human character is just an unoriginal variation copy of the original character.
Let me try again. All humans in any non-fantasy story, are born on the same planet, with the same origin. They have the same powers and weaknesses. All your left with to distinguish one human from another in your view, seems their names and clothing.
Am I wrong?
Not in the slightest
Yes, you're wrong. Basically none of those statements is accurate. When literally everyone is born on the same planet then it's not part of your backstory. And everyone has different powers and weaknesses
And you don't think two characters born on the same alien planet, can have different backstories, the same way two humans born on the same earth can?