• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers SUPERGIRL - 2026 DCU Movie Grade & Discussion

How do you rate Supergirl 2026?


  • Total voters
    18
dinosaurs and a space dragon would probably have been helpful trailer fodder.

And at a minimum, I suspect that a film that was as visually ornate and dazzling as the book might have been more attractive to audiences

I don't disagree at all with any of what I've quoted, but this sounds like a much more expensive film. And I don't see how that would change the sexist, unforced nastiness in the opinions posted online concerning Alcock's appearance, that plausibly express resistance to anything in a segment of the prospective audience.
 
IT'S ONLY WRONG WHEN HENRY CAVILL DOES IT.

Only to those still thinking a character has endless options in a split-second attempt to save the lives of innocents from a being with otherworldly powers superior to his own...all to preserve the long-faded Weisinger idea of Superman. MCU Captain America (especially in The First Avenger & The Winter Soldier) was as much of an unshakably moral, "nice guy" superhero as the idea has ever been adapted to film, yet he was an extremely mission-oriented killer, seen in his pursuit of the Red Skull and endless body count during WW2 and against various threats in his 2nd film. Yet, The Walking American Flag's beliefs, decisions and actions were all justified by situation and mission, and accepted by rational audiences, rather than being accused of placing a bloody axe in Santa's hands--the latter mirroring the eternally ridiculous whining of certain Superman fans. :lol:
 
It's an ambiguous situation, but I guess resorting to insults clears everything up.
Believe it or not, that wasn’t directed at you personally. I am genuinely baffled by how many folks misread that final page, though. Considering the evident confusion it generates for many readers, it might have been better in hindsight for Evely to omit the blood spray, at least. I still think the intent is plain in context with the rest of the book, however.
 
Only to those still thinking a character has endless options in a split-second attempt to save the lives of innocents from a being with otherworldly powers superior to his own...all to preserve the long-faded Weisinger idea of Superman. MCU Captain America (especially in The First Avenger & The Winter Soldier) was as much of an unshakably moral, "nice guy" superhero as the idea has ever been adapted to film, yet he was an extremely mission-oriented killer, seen in his pursuit of the Red Skull and endless body count during WW2 and against various threats in his 2nd film. Yet, The Walking American Flag's beliefs, decisions and actions were all justified by situation and mission, and accepted by rational audiences, rather than being accused of placing a bloody axe in Santa's hands--the latter mirroring the eternally ridiculous whining of certain Superman fans. :lol:
yawn1.gif
 
Snyder sealed the eventual fate of his DCEU with that moronic choice in his first outing, turning a substantial number of fans against him. No lengthy after-the-fact justifications for his pathetic lack of insight will salvage his failure.

He never had the full confidence of the studio again, and they lost patience with him pretty quickly.




 
Last edited:
What gets me is how it's so important to some people to see a movie fail. Like it's connected to their own self-worth or something.
Some people have a specific (misogynistic, in this case) ideological axe to grind. Others are obsessively wedded to a prior version of DC’s characters and simply can’t let it go. Still others just get off more generally on seeing somebody else fail.

Lots of poison in the world. (See also: the continued viability and success of certain politicians and their parties.)
 
Hopefully it isn't too long until it comes to streaming, I'm curious to see what it's like! Superman was available pretty quickly, which was nice.
 
No one moves in any comics panel.

Of course, but part of the art of comics is choosing a still pose that conveys motion.


He is in a different position in each panel following the “fatal” blow, however.

But in the final panel of the sequence, he's lying flat, so it could be interpreted as Krem dying slowly and finally lying still. (Realistically, people usually don't die instantly unless they're shot or stabbed in a vital area.) It would have been clearer that he was alive if his final pose had suggested continued mobility the way the previous two panels did.
 
What gets me is how it's so important to some people to see a movie fail. Like it's connected to their own self-worth or something.
It obviously is. Or perhaps more to the point, such a failure represents a repudiation of changing cultural values that they imagine are pushing them or people like them out of a "natural" centrailty. Self-worth bound up with privilege and craving for attention.

There's no rational measure by which popular entertainment narratives are not still male-dominated. Yet each high-profile exception is seen as an assault. And should a celebrity fail to genuflect to male self-importance - or worse, mock it - they are fair targets for personal abuse and cruelty.
 
Last edited:
But in the final panel of the sequence, he's lying flat, so it could be interpreted as Krem dying slowly and finally lying still. (Realistically, people usually don't die instantly unless they're shot or stabbed in a vital area.) It would have been clearer that he was alive if his final pose had suggested continued mobility the way the previous two panels did.
I feel like the stillness of that final panel is to suggest a sort of peacefulness after all the book’s conflict and drama and high emotion. Old Krem is not dead, but he is left alone with his sins under the dawning sky.

I suppose Evely could have spoon-fed the reader a bit more, but it would have come at the expense of a certain elegance to the imagery, IMO.

Also, again, everything in the linked article. (Why exactly would King contradict the climactic crux of the entire narrative — its thematic, character, and emotional core — by having Ruthye up and murder Krem after all?)
(Edited to spoiler code the continuing discussion for CorporalCaptain and anybody else who hasn’t read the book — though that ship has probably sailed at this point.)
 
I feel like the stillness of that final panel is to suggest a sort of peacefulness after all the book’s conflict and drama and high emotion. Old Krem is not dead, but he is left alone with his sins under the dawning sky.

I suppose Evely could have spoon-fed the reader a bit more, but it would have come at the expense of a certain elegance to the imagery, IMO.

Also, again, everything in the linked article. (Why exactly would King contradict the climactic crux of the entire narrative — its thematic, character, and emotional core — by having Ruthye up and murder Krem after all?)
(Edited to spoiler code the continuing discussion for CorporalCaptain and anybody else who hasn’t read the book — though that ship has probably sailed at this point.)

I'm not saying you're wrong about any of this, just that I can understand why people would misinterpret the ending, because I wasn't quite clear on it myself. I had to think about it to figure out that Krem was probably alive at the end of the comic, and a lot of people don't really think that much about what they read or watch, but just go by impressions.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top