I appreciate this.
However, additional significant story differences between the comic and the film have now been discussed by someone else, since, in this thread, without having been spoiler-coded, so, yeah, the ship is definitely in the process of casting off. It's the Internet.
My hardcover World of Tomorrow arrived today, so I will get into it, though I won't be able to binge. It is my intention to comment on its interpretation eventually in this thread, but it could take weeks to finish the volume.
One thing I notice right off the bat is that the coloring of the last page is distinct from what was reproduced on the webpage “Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow” — does Ruthye kill Krem?.
In the volume the sky is gold, instead of the blue on the webpage. What the reason is for this difference, someday I may learn.
...and?
Fans have such binary notions about this stuff.
About what stuff?
If you think his job is not to ensure the quality and success of these films, what do you think his job is? And if it's not his responsibility, whose is it?
It's not his fault either. Yes, Gunn and Safran, and Feige are the ones in charge of the movies, and pick which ones get made, but they're not the ones actually making the movies. In their defense there are a lot of movies that seem like a good idea, and look like they have a ton of potential, but just don't come together in a way that works for people. And there are also a lot of movies that turned out great, but for some reason just didn't attract the kind of audience they were hoping for.
Yes. Hierarchy is a thing. Even directors have to get their bosses' approval for their choices, or follow their bosses' instructions. (Well, usually. There's a Mel Brooks quote circulating on Bluesky today about how he just told the studio suits he'd obey their notes and then just ignored them.)
If the movie was bad, his choice was to spend millions to fix it, or stuff the movie in the vault with Batgirl, never to be seen again, and collect the tax credit.
That’s interesting. I remember the hardcover Deluxe Edition being advertised as having “remastered colors,” which I frankly looked at a little askance since the colors were just dandy as they were. I’ve read the book once in the trade paperback and once in the deluxe hardcover (I double-dipped), but never did a side-by-side comparison for whatever changes Lopes may have made, and none of the differences jumped out at me. I assume he just took the opportunity to make coloring revisions he thought improved the book.
I think Kara had that power in the Supergirl Arrowverse series.
EDIT: Not to use to rip Krypto's snout off though.
It seems from reading through this thread that a lot of people believe this is a quality film while others don't. This film has been judged at the box office, but not based on its quality.
Last edited:
I haven't seen the movie yet, but really enjoyed the comic. You're in for a treat, but if you haven't read King's writing before you need to know it has a particular style that some people love and others hate.
You're right that it might be a good thing for this thread to have a spoiler warning though. For my part, I haven't found anything greatly revealing about the movie in this discussion, as I already know the original story.
Its starting to look like it. They never should have rebooted. Now we got the first superman film that was just really break even maybe only eeking out a tiny profit and we have supergirl that looks like it will lose millions. This is not looking good at all.
It might not matter to the movie goer but it will to the studio. If this movie loses money it will be the only supergirl film.
Well, they paid Helen up front for three movies, and she only ever did one, unless you count the Flash.
Yeah. Well this isnt good Guy. This movie will be losing millions and the writer that wrote it is writing wonder woman. It was a colossal mistake for WB to attempt another cinematic universe. I think this last attempt will finish it for good. It won't be a success and theyll go back to smaller, less expensive films. Obsession made 370mil in a 700k budget. That little film has embarrassed WB and Disney after they spent millions on their two big summer movies.
Last edited:
"Probably not even bad" isn't exactly high praise.
Gunn came out and publicly said the Supergirl script was so good he rushed Supergirl and made it the next movie after Superman, he talked the script up as if it was the best thing ever, he said he hired a great director. Now the movie is a massive bomb, it might not even reach $150 million worldwide and even the positive reviews mostly settle on "It's okay".
Gunn has made several questionable choices from the start. The DCU was supposed to be a reboot but he also decided to make Peacemaker part of the DCU but only in a kinda/sorta way with a reshot ending of season 1 removing the DCEU Justice League. That also means that The Suicide Squad is kinda/sorta in the DCU and he talked about possibly keeping Blue Beetle which was pretty confusing and muddled the message a bit, is it a reboot or is it not a reboot?
He also decided to make tv/streaming shows when this was arguably on of the choices that hurt the MCU the most despite some of the shows being really good but it still made catching up feel like homework because people assumed they had to watch the shows.
But okay, tv shows are now a thing but what's the strategy here? Green Lantern becomes a tv project while Clayface gets a movie? This feels completely counterintuitive, Green Lantern is a space cop, this screams epic space adventure on the big screen while Clayface is a really small character in the big picture and should be a prime candidate for a tv project if you do them.
A shared cinematic Universe should also have a at least a somewhat unified vision and feel coherent but so far it doesn't. Par too the marketing campaign of Superman was declaring that color, optimism and fun are back in superhero movies contrasting the project to the DCEU version. And they delivered, Superman was bright, colorful and optimistic but with Supergirl they immediately switch to moody, drunk mess on various brown planets and that despite the comic the story is based on being extremely colorful and gorgeous to look at. In the comic the colorful worlds are a contrast to the darker story and that would have worked for the movie too but nope, the went with "brown".
Not all movies can have the same look, Batman would by necessity be literally darker than Superman but Supergirl should match Superman more. The movie does have some bright scenes (mostly flashbacks) but the marketing certainly didn't show it, it was brown.
And then there's the elephant in the room that's Batman or the lack of Batman. The DCU needs Batman and it needs him sooner rather than later and Gunn wasn't willing to make the hard choice to either declare Matt Reeves Batman is part of the DCU wether Reeves likes it or not or end Reeves Batman and do the DCU version right away. It is simply insane to try and build a shared universe but let Reeves do his own Batman over there.
And if someone wants to argue that there's enough room for two Batmen ... maybe. But Gunn isn't doing that either, he is clearly delaying his Batman for the sake of Reeves.
And the bit we do know about The Brave and the Bold is that he hired the Flash director, writer and producer team to do it which doesn't fill me with confidence. Gunn has praised The Flash as a great movie and some people argued that was just corporate speak because he works for DC now but the fact that he hired the team responsible for that movie suggests he was genuine when he praised it.
He also said he generally wants to let creatives do their own thing as in "I hire great people and let them cook" but that's the wrong approach. You can do that when you do individual, unconnected movies but a shared universe has to be producer driven with directors getting marching orders and having their creative freedom limited.
I don't question Gunn's qualifications as the head of the DCU after one movie, I question it after a string of baffling decisions I cannot understand.
Just a producer is underselling his position. He is the writer's and director's boss, he had the authority to order changes at any point before, during and after production. And of course he's also the one who hired the writer and director in the first place.
Yup. Totally agree. They couldn't even call the green lantern TV show green lanterns. Instead its lanterns. Also the premise looks terrible. Basically Hal Jordan is already going to be put out to pasture. Yeah thats exactly whst I was hoping for green lantern. Sigh.
Old Hal Jordan means Parallax and Spectre.
Of course training his replacement doesn't mean that he's about to retire. It's possible that every 5 years or so, Hal is encouraged to source a new "younger" replacement, for just in case some one gets in a lucky shot.
Unless the ring has been slowing his ageing down, and Jordan is really old, or the exact opposite, what if the Ring gives you Cancer like what happened with Jane Foster when she was Thor? The power of Thor was "reversing" her chemotherapy.
It never mentioned again but back in the early 1990s, it's mentioned that you use your ring to keep yourself young.
Except Arisia Raab who used her magic ring to make herself old "enough".