No.
I agree. It's only the second movie in the new DC universe, and although I haven't seen either yet, I feel both Supergirl and the new MOTU will do very well on streaming.
People tend to forget that with the costs of living getting more and more expensive, people are selective with where they spend their money. I know I am. I had to choose between Superman and FF last year. Chose FF. I'm not seeing both Supergirl and MOTU in theaters because I really want to see the new Spider-Man.
Too many people are still to hung up on box office, which is still important. But as home video was two decades, streaming revenues are now important to studios. So we'll see what happens then.
I'm still crawling out of my COVID bubble. I literally considered the expected audience size in the theater when choosing my Supergirl show. There being only one presold ticket tipped me over the edge to see the 8:30AM show (that, and being out of bed and walking around).
I didn't even know they had shows that early! Pretty sure that isn't the case around here. I once tried to buy an advance ticket at my local theater many hours later than that and the place seemed to be locked up, dark and devoid of life.
I was surprised! Minimal staff, just walk right in from the box office.
I thought the money talk was in the box office thread.
You also need to account for the Bro-crowd reviewers in that score.
Why? As I mentioned above, I think Milly is gorgeous. Then the one sheets / poster art started rolling out, and I kept doing a double-take. Is that even Milly? Is this AI that's not quite right? It doesn't look like her. She doesn't need to be prettied up, but she also doesn't need to be made to look unattractive. This was consistent across the marketing scheme for some reason. I probably saw six to ten different one sheets / posters for this, and only one of them looked like her to me.
How does this serve the version of the character? Well, you want to get people interested in seeing the character. She was gorgeous at the end of Superman 2025. For this film, the ads can feature her as be beat up, her face dirtied, her hair tussled up, etc, but not be made to look ugly. Since I posted this, I saw other people post the same thing on Twitter, and some people even posted AI art that made her look better. Oh well.
It's less about the money than the impact on the Universe - anyone who thinks that the second film in a new Universe being the lowest grossing in modern DC history doesn't cause a rethink is high.
I thought the money talk was in the box office thread.
Partly because of exhibitor pressure - films that do $147 a screen per day on opening night do not pay the bills.
I'll take that. It's good that Superman and his family are returning next summer.
A problem with this Gunn-verse is that the focus is on non-major properties (Superman aside) and small screen stories. I'm happy that were getting a Green Lantern series, but I much rather would have seen the character on the big screen. And there's still no news about The Flash, the Gunnverse Batman, Wonder Woman, or any of the big names.
A problem with this Gunn-verse is that the focus is on non-major properties (Superman aside) and small screen stories. I'm happy that were getting a Green Lantern series, but I much rather would have seen the character on the big screen. And there's still no news about The Flash, the Gunnverse Batman, Wonder Woman, or any of the big names.
I was baffled why the places we saw in Supergirl were so generic rather than pull on existing races? You could hint at Green Lanterns and so on without changing the story. The nearest we got was the on-screen graphics were similar to the 1970s LSH font.
I don't know why you think she looks unattractive. I just did an image search for the actress, and I don't see any significant difference between how she looks as Supergirl and how she looks in publicity photos. Obviously the hair and makeup are different, but I don't think they make any significant difference to how her face looks.
In seeing stories about the character. That's about more than just physical appearance. Especially when a glamorized appearance would work against the specific story and character.
I am not seeing a single picture of Millie Alcock in relation to this movie, or any picture anywhere, that makes her look unattractive.
Last edited:
It's apparently because she's not smiling enough.
I think we should make a rule that if you want to call an actress unattractive then you have to post a photo of your wife or girlfriend. (That's a joke for the poster that is going to take my comment seriously)
Starting at the age of 16...
One thing about the birthday storyline, Nogueira used it as a point right up front to clarify that all this debauchery is being practiced by a woman of legal age anywhere in the known galaxy.
Without getting into the physical attractiveness of individual actors - so why was this film ignored?
The marketing? The character themselves? Something external? Lack of a decent?
Yes it's claimed people are being selective but there are plenty of films making money so they select something.
The marketing? The character themselves? Something external? Lack of a decent?
Yes it's claimed people are being selective but there are plenty of films making money so they select something.
I don't have any immediate ideas of my own, but Deadline did a few paragraphs on what the industry insider expectations were for films this summer - they note that Disclosure, MotU, and Supergirl have been regarded as the shakiest of the big releases for some months back, in commercial terms. Given the time frames being discussed, if this is so, it's unlikely that they were basing their expectations on anything they knew about script details on any of the movies.
Similar threads
