Spoilers SUPERGIRL - 2026 DCU Movie Grade & Discussion

[The Realist]

Maybe it's because I'm a fellow English person but her dropping out of the accent she was going for was distracting to me.

I gotta tell you the truth, I’m pretty tone-deaf to these things. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard talk about an actor’s accent slipping, and been like, “Sounded fine to me.” (Katie McGrath as Lena in the Supergirl TV series was one frequent example.)

 

[JoeZhang]

The challenge for me is she is given a soft generic posh(ish) English accent but then she drops out into her native mackem accent when shouting or angry and they are very different.

 

[The Realist]

TBH, I’m not sure that’s so bad, given the original comics character. Ruthye narrates in a very elevated and verbose manner, but she’s a poor rural kid from a rock farm. If she’s putting on “airs” in her speech that slip when she’s agitated, that strikes me as potentially in line with that character.

Though again, I’m pretty much deaf to it in any case.

 

[FPAlpha]

Just seen it and gave it a solid B

Milly Alcock is fantastic as Supergirl, she really sells the hard partying 20 something trying to run from her pain and i love how they really set her apart from Clark characterwise, especially when they talk about him in one scene and it becomes clear that Clark has never truly experienced personal loss that he actually felt unlike Kara.

Yes he lost his parents too but he was a baby and then he won the lottery and was found by two of the most decent people on Earth, raised him to be a good man and gave him nothing but love.

Kara had that too but had to experience losing her loving parents and it obviously had an effect on her and this movie showed that pretty well.

As to the movie itself i have to give it a C because it was pretty generic. It suffered from a completely one dimensional villain, not even close to Lex Luthor, Joker or any of the other major villains and this is a problem many movie franchises have, not just soperhero movies, because the villains don't measure up to the heroes and it drags the whole movie down. Marvel has the same problem and could never solve it and it dragged the whole movie and part of the franchise down but when they got the villain right the movie leapt off the screen much like it did with Superman and Nicholas Hoult's Lex Luthor.

Lobo/Jason Momoa was a fun addition that brought in a little spice but nothing more i'm afraid. He needs to be a more central character, maybe somewhere down the line he'll get a solo movie or a bigger part to explore him better.

I was ready to write this movie off in the end when they got me with Supergirls speech to Ruthy, i was already rolling my eyes and thinking of Batman and Joker and all the other villains the superheroes regularly let go for moral reasons and who then go on killing people first chance they get and was pleasantly surprised they flipped the script on me and the audience when Kara actually killed Krem, that was actually a cool subversion of the trope and i'm glad they put it in the movie.

So Milly Alcock was a clear A in that role, the movie was unfortunately a C, which in the end makes it a B. Solid effort overall and it was always hard to follow the stellar Superman movie that got eveything right.

I'll be lookinhg for more Supergirl as she works alongside Superman and others, should be fun.

 

[The Realist]

I was ready to write this movie off in the end when they got me with Supergirls speech to Ruthy, i was already rolling my eyes and thinking of Batman and Joker and all the other villains the superheroes regularly let go for moral reasons and who then go on killing people first chance they get and was pleasantly surprised they flipped the script on me and the audience when Kara actually killed Krem, that was actually a cool subversion of the trope and i'm glad they put it in the movie.

I was actually tearing up a bit at Kara’s speech to Ruthye, though it had nowhere near the emotional power of the comparable moment in the book. Then the murder negated any saving grace to the scene.

This universe does offer other alternatives than killing the guy or letting him continue to run wild. Capturing him and turning him over to galactic authorities — the Green Lantern Corps or whomever — would be one example. Or as in the book, confining him in the Phantom Zone.

The latter was what I expected to happen going in, not just because of the graphic novel, but because there was official merch released for the movie with the phrase, “Have fun in the Phantom Zone, bitches!” — a line that appears nowhere in the film as released.

 

[Noname Given]

It's astonishing. She spends the entire movie claiming revenge is wrong and then straight up murders a totally defenceless man for hurting her CGI dog.

I can't remember the last time I saw a film where every decision in the production process was the wrong one.

Kara wasn't saying "Revenge is wrong..." per se; she's telling the girl it won't make her feel better, and she'll be living with those actions for the rest of her life.

Kara's already past that point herself, and she just was trying to keep the girl from going down that same path.

I actually liked this film more than I thought I would. The bits with Lobo were good, and they kept him in character the entire film (IE - he didn't go out of his way to help anyone or protect the girl; he was there for a Bounty and his own reasons and was impressed by some of the kids actions bit no he didn't care if she lived or died; which is very in character.

I also like the inherent 'role reversal' of Kal-El/Kara Zor-El in that Kal-El's brother knew Jor-El had sent Kal-El to Earth with the intention that he conquer and enslave it. and create a 'new-Krypton with his prodgeny; but Xor-El sends Kara thete with the hope she'll save/protect the people of Earth; but due to various unforeseen circumstances - Kal El becomes Earth's protector: but Kara, while still a good person at heart, is more self centered and just wants to live her life as she wants not really caring about anything other than Krypto; the puppy she rescued on Argo.

Yes, she does good, but she's not out to specificly always 'do good' in the same way Kal-El does.

It wasn't what I expected but was also better than I expected.

A- from me.

 

[Noname Given]

Considering Supergirl will return in the currently filming Man of Tomorrow it almost does not matter how much money this makes.

It's performance at the box office with have a bearing on how far DC/WB decides to continue with Gunn's take on the new DCFU.

They may just scale back to the point they do just standalone Supetman/Batman films from time to time; or try to keep a loose but connected narrative with the DC Superhero characters.

 

[Guy Gardener]

It's performance at the box office with have a bearing on how far DC/WB decides to continue with Gunn's take on the new DCFU.

They may just scale back to the point they do just standalone Supetman/Batman films from time to time; or try to keep a loose but connected narrative with the DC Superhero characters.

They could make a gonzo Jimmy Olsen movie for less than ten million dollars.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

As far as the DCU going forward is concerned, the Clayface movie's performance will also be considered. My guess is that they might scale back the budgets and seek to make their money back through streaming and licensing.

 

[Christopher]

TBH, I’m not sure that’s so bad, given the original comics character. Ruthye narrates in a very elevated and verbose manner, but she’s a poor rural kid from a rock farm. If she’s putting on “airs” in her speech that slip when she’s agitated, that strikes me as potentially in line with that character.

Hmm, I'm not sure, because I think Ruthye's narration in the comic was ultimately revealed to be the writings of the much older Ruthye looking back on events from her youth. Not putting on airs so much as having changed and matured over the decades.

As to the movie itself i have to give it a C because it was pretty generic. It suffered from a completely one dimensional villain, not even close to Lex Luthor, Joker or any of the other major villains and this is a problem many movie franchises have, not just soperhero movies, because the villains don't measure up to the heroes and it drags the whole movie down.

The thing is, I didn't find Krem a very distinctive villain in the comic, because he was really more of a MacGuffin, a quest driver for an episodic, picaresque series of adventures, like the One-Armed Man in The Fugitive. So maybe he wasn't the best choice to base a movie villain on, at least not without some radical changes. Although from what I read, they did make some major changes to the character, but perhaps not enough.

Lobo/Jason Momoa was a fun addition that brought in a little spice but nothing more i'm afraid. He needs to be a more central character, maybe somewhere down the line he'll get a solo movie or a bigger part to explore him better.

Yeah, I was afraid of that, that he'd just be tacked onto a story that didn't need him as a way of setting up a future appearance.

I was ready to write this movie off in the end when they got me with Supergirls speech to Ruthy, i was already rolling my eyes and thinking of Batman and Joker and all the other villains the superheroes regularly let go for moral reasons and who then go on killing people first chance they get and was pleasantly surprised they flipped the script on me and the audience when Kara actually killed Krem, that was actually a cool subversion of the trope and i'm glad they put it in the movie.

I wouldn't really call it a subversion, because movie superheroes tend to kill the bad guys far more regularly than their comic book counterparts do -- and even when they don't kill the bad guys, the bad guys still usually end up dying some other way. Movies are addicted to the "villain dies at the end" formula, so that even non-lethal superheroes are usually turned into killers in their movies to make them conform to the formulas of action movies. So within the context of movies, it's far more of a subversion when the heroes don't kill the bad guys, because killing them is the lazy, predictable way to end a movie.

This universe does offer other alternatives than killing the guy or letting him continue to run wild. Capturing him and turning him over to galactic authorities — the Green Lantern Corps or whomever — would be one example. Or as in the book, confining him in the Phantom Zone.

The latter was what I expected to happen going in, not just because of the graphic novel, but because there was official merch released for the movie with the phrase, “Have fun in the Phantom Zone, bitches!” — a line that appears nowhere in the film as released.

Hmm... That makes me wonder if the movie originally ended that way but some executive insisted on a reshoot to conform to the "villain dies" formula.

 

[The Realist]

Hmm, I'm not sure, because I think Ruthye's narration in the comic was ultimately revealed to be the writings of the much older Ruthye looking back on events from her youth. Not putting on airs so much as having changed and matured over the decades.

I thought about that, and it’s a fair point, but because it’s the voice embedded in the narrative throughout as Ruthye’s, and because the character with whom we spend 98 percent of the story is her as a child, I tend to associate it with her (and I suspect most other readers do as well).

Even more to the point, her dialogue within the story proper is not much different. For example, when Kara asks her at an early point how she likes space travel so far, Ruthye replies, “It is preferable to sitting in the tall grass and waiting for age and disease to claim my sworn enemies. Beyond that caveat, I have not drawn any cheer from the situation.”

(And man, if only the movie had kept more of that tone and flair to the writing.)

I wouldn't really call it a subversion, because movie adaptations of superheroes tend to kill the bad guys far more regularly than their comic book counterparts do -- and even when they don't kill the bad guys, the bad guys still usually end up dying some other way. Movies are addicted to the "villain dies at the end" formula, so that even non-lethal superheroes are usually turned into killers in their movies to make them conform to the formulas of action movies. So within the context of movies, it's far more of a subversion when the heroes don't kill the bad guys, because killing them is the lazy, predictable way to end a movie.

This.

Hmm... That makes me wonder if the movie originally ended that way but some executive insisted on a reshoot to conform to the "villain dies" formula.

The creatives involved are apparently claiming the current ending was the only one ever considered. It certainly does beg the question of why that line is featured on the merch, however.

 

[FPAlpha]

I wouldn't really call it a subversion, because movie superheroes tend to kill the bad guys far more regularly than their comic book counterparts do -- and even when they don't kill the bad guys, the bad guys still usually end up dying some other way. Movies are addicted to the "villain dies at the end" formula, so that even non-lethal superheroes are usually turned into killers in their movies to make them conform to the formulas of action movies. So within the context of movies, it's far more of a subversion when the heroes don't kill the bad guys, because killing them is the lazy, predictable way to end a movie.

However when you wear that S on your uniform it tends to be a big deal.

That no kill trope that is especially a part of Batman's mythology including using only non lethal gadgets or ones he uses with such skill they become non lethal is sometimes stretched to such a degree they become storylines themselves without changing the status quo of course.

Here it worked for me as i was expecting Kara to arrest or otherwise make sure he can't kill anymore, i even thought Lobo would do it and it would be the reason he's in the movie at all so to put this all upside down it was a surprise for me but a welcome one. As @Noname Given said it's Kara sparing Ruthye from changing her character and taking the burden on herself, which is another form of heroism i guess and i liked it.

 

[JoeZhang]

The creatives involved are apparently claiming the current ending was the only one ever considered. It certainly does beg the question of why that line is featured on the merch, however.

It's funny - In an interview I saw, the writer *thinks* she is just moving up Krem's death from the future. The art in the original is ambiguous so that's a view a lot share - that he dies. Tom King however says he actually lives.

 

[The Realist]

It's funny - In an interview I saw, the writer *thinks* she is just moving up Krem's death from the future. The art in the original is ambiguous so that's a view a lot share - that he dies. Tom King however says he actually lives.

If that’s the case, she has problems as a reader as well as a writer.

“Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow” — does Ruthye kill Krem?

Spoiler

It’s not a “view” and it’s not “ambiguous.” She and any other readers like her are careless, unobservant, and dead wrong.

 

[Christopher]

However when you wear that S on your uniform it tends to be a big deal.

In movies, does it really? The ending of Superman II implied that the Phantom Zone villains were killed (though there was a deleted scene of them being carted away by the police). Superman killed Nuclear Man in Superman IV (though that had the usual fictional copout that killing artificial life forms somehow doesn't count even if they're fully sentient). Of course there's the ending of Man of Steel, and Steppenwolf dies in both versions of Justice League, with Superman participating in the events that lead to his death.

Like I said, the "villain dies" trope is so baked into movie storytelling that it's common even in movies about superheroes who never kill in the comics. The new Supergirl is just one more example of that far too common practice.

That no kill trope that is especially a part of Batman's mythology including using only non lethal gadgets or ones he uses with such skill they become non lethal is sometimes stretched to such a degree they become storylines themselves without changing the status quo of course.

But again, that's far less the case in the movies. Burton's Batman killed routinely. Schumacher's Batman was generally less lethal, but deliberately took the action that caused Two-Face's death. Nolan's Bruce Wayne was inconsistently portrayed; in Begins, immediately after he refused to execute a defenseless man, he started a fight that blew up the Assassins' base and probably killed many of them, and then there was "I don't have to save you" at the end. And so on.

As @Noname Given said it's Kara sparing Ruthye from changing her character and taking the burden on herself, which is another form of heroism i guess and i liked it.

I don't think a zero-sum solution like that is very heroic. At least, it's not superheroic, because the "super" means transcending the expected limits. This feels like the exact same situation as the Man of Steel ending -- the "hero" just letting the villain win the philosophical battle by sinking to his level, rather than transcending it by finding a better way. That is unworthy of the S symbol.

 

[Set Harth]

Nolan's Bruce Wayne was inconsistently portrayed; in Begins, immediately after he refused to execute a defenseless man, he started a fight that blew up the Assassins' base and probably killed many of them, and then there was "I don't have to save you" at the end.

And then in the next movie the whole point of the ending is the Joker making him break his rule, and then in the movie after that he kills the truck driver...

it was a surprise for me but a welcome one.

 

[The Realist]

It's funny - In an interview I saw, the writer *thinks* she is just moving up Krem's death from the future. The art in the original is ambiguous so that's a view a lot share - that he dies. Tom King however says he actually lives.

Confirmed, BTW, that Nogueira’s reading comprehension is unequal to the comic book she’s adapting (poorly). This is her, from an interview with Variety:

The ending between Kara and Krem was always in it, from the pitch — truly from the very beginning. Because the comic ends with Ruthye killing him, but in the far, far future. We knew we weren’t gonna be able to do that kind of time jump, and I find it’s quite a dark ending of the comic. He essentially has changed, and she kills him anyway, because she still just has this anger, and you understand there’s this element of deserve, right?

https://variety.com/2026/film/featu...gueira-comic-changes-wonder-woman-1236790034/

What a fiasco.

 

[Christopher]

Reminds me of Zack Snyder misinterpreting that page in The Dark Knight Returns as Batman killing a male kidnapper rather than just shooting the wall next to a female kidnapper.

 

[Mudd]

There's an observed preference among audiences for seeing child rapists die, and die badly, onscreen. It's not Argo City science, guys.

 

[Set Harth]

Reminds me of Zack Snyder misinterpreting that page in The Dark Knight Returns as Batman killing a male kidnapper rather than just shooting the wall next to a female kidnapper.

It's unclear what shooting the wall would accomplish, and there seems to be some kind of splatter, though it's greyed out for whatever reason.