Because they write by focus groups and executive notes? Come on, people. It's not like all the other characters they churn out are well rounded and believable. It's an over arching, market safe, China friendly, pink washing affair. What more can you expect?
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2026
48 points (92.9% liked)
movies
3627 readers
32 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
Woman of Tomorrow — the graphic novel the movie is based on — is excellent. It would take a special kind of skill to fuck it up. Whether the director blew it, audiences are still sexist chuds, or nobody wants to have anything to do with a shitty company like WB who is being monopolistically acquired by actual nazis… the character and story deserve better.
Yeah, but that's part of the problem. Adaptation to screen requires creating a manuscript to match. Usually a lot gets left out, bastardized and/or homogenized.
Also writers in Hollywood are severely abused creatures (similarly to the "Call of Duty" mines in gaming), who get micromanaged and edited to death - so that also stands to reason.
God this is so accurate all around.
Audiences like A over B
D over C
E over F
G over H
Wait, why did it flop?
Oh wait, Audiences are dumb.
Also, it turns out, they only like E and D, in the context of B, but the focus group said A, D,E and G, so we used that.
Make Movies Organically Creative Again
One could argue that “Supergirl” was set up for failure given the way the character was introduced into the DC Universe in Gunn’s “Superman”: drunkenly stumbling into the Fortress of Solitude looking for her dog Krypto in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it cameo.
I actually thought this scene was really funny and was looking forward to her movie; I thought it could be a comedy, like maybe she goes on a super-bender and hijinks ensue. Then the trailer dropped and it kind of seemed like it explained the whole movie, or enough that I could fill in the blanks without actually seeing it, and it looked like yet another standard superhero movie. It's also the second movie in a row where Krypto gets in trouble, and I cannot stress enough how much I do not want to see a movie where the dog is in mortal peril.
A female Hancock prequel would've been pretty dope.
Yeah, the bit in Superman had me really looking forward to this ... showing up drunk and havjng a badly behaved dog? I can really identify with that, lol
I felt the same. her and krypto were the best part of the superman movie to me.
Because originality is not gendered. A superhero movie rarely brings anything new, and is in essence an attempt at making art via a committee.
DISCLAIMER: I have not seen this particular movie. It might actually stink. My statement is based on the superhero movies I've seen for the past 25 years.
Art via a committee is just a project.
It is my understanding that the main character is unlikable and the plot has a bunch of "And then character shows up so the next scene can happen" kind of writing.
I dunno. I'm sick of male superheroes tbh. Was quite looking forward to this and will still watch it but not in the cinema.
Anyone seen it?
I did. It wasn't an amazing movie, but it wasn't bad. Given what it is I think it benefited from not being super long and feeling like it dragged on. I enjoyed it, but I haven't watched a superhero movie in several years, and I saw it in a full spec IMAX theater.
One dude in my group chat said it was alright. A fun watch, but nothing mold shattering. Most critiques were small and about the ending.
I have not. I sorta feel this article made its decision based on box office percieved success.
I saw it the other night. It was fine. SG’s dog wasn’t a good enough reason to go on this journey. Lobo’s character wasnt even needed.
They should have a SG2 but they need to put more effort into it. Give the writer some help, or look towards the comics to find a storyline that makes sense and can be adapted.
This was adapted almost directly from a comic that by all measurements is pretty solid. The writers needed to be beaten with the comic instead of doing whatever this is to it.
The movie was a pretty straightforward adaptation of a successful supergirl comic.
If you’re blaming the writing you’re off.
I think I've only seen two DC superhero movies that don't include a Batman, and they were the 2 Wonder Woman movies. Mostly, DC hero movies suck. The first Wonder Woman was actually decent, all things considered, except for the forced drab horror of WWI as a setting. The characters seem so flat and boring. The Flash? Gimme a break.
Then the trailer for Supergirl really looked like Peter Quill should show up in the middle and this turns into Guardians of the Galaxy 4. Which isn't an improvement, but watch a GotG trailer and then Supergirl and tell me I'm wrong. That's a choice someone made.
Supergirl needs therapy because she has abandonment issues? OK, we get it. But punching Lobo in the dick isn't going to fix that, and unlikely friends trope can only go so far. Clark simps for humans so bad that he could leave earth all the time and doesn't (obviously not in the comics) - because he has abandonment issues, too. The Kents just have him locked in emotionally. Whoop-de-friggin' do. And the CGI dog looks terrible. Fully terrible. Nothing excites me about Superman or Superdog or Supergirl.
UNLESS the movie includes a scene where someone throws some pink kryptonite at Clark and get gets all sexy with anyone and everyone. That would be hilarious.
Because studio execs don't care about women and want the super hero fad to continue even when audiences have moved on for the most part. They play it save, by the numbers with spread sheets at hand. The people in charge have no passion for these stories whatsoever because again, they don't care about women.
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.
The story that introduced the character was drawn by Al Plastino and written by Otto Binder. Years earlier, Binder had co-created Mary Marvel, the sister of Captain Marvel.[4] Like Supergirl, Mary Marvel was a teenage female version of an adult male superhero, wearing a costume that was identical to the older character's other than substituting a short skirt for tight trousers. (Binder also created Marvel Comics' Miss America, a superhero who shared little other than the name with her sometime co-star Captain America.)
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?