Spoilers SUPERGIRL - 2026 DCU Movie Grade & Discussion

[TRON JA307020]

She's not a well known character to headline movies, and the idea this movie didn't break even yet is erroneous anyways.

It could still break even but it needs to make 2.5 times its budget to do that. It was about 160 to 170 to make. But I will calculate at even a lower amount of 150mil. To break even it will need to bring on 375 mil at the end of its run if we base it off of 150. Its not off to a good start. Can it do it? Maybe if it gets a strong word of mouth and has lasting power. The 4th of July weekend is coming up. That will be its big chance to make a run for it.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

I didn't, but the explosion would be a normal explosion, almost killing Krypto, ripping his snout off, before his super powers kicked in, and started healing him, sorta like the last episode of Stargate SG1.

Or the conclusion of X-MEN's LAST STAND, with repeatedly charbroiled Jackman. In conclusion, yeesh.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So lets see the Forbes article.

Buddy, you quoted the post with the link to it, already there and clearly indicated!

 

[the G-man]

Oh, hardly. What's the point of having multiple series if they all do the same thing? The appeal of a shared universe is that it's eclectic, that it has something to offer for a wide range of different tastes. DC and Marvel have always understood that, which is why they've always had a wide range of different genres and styles in their comics -- grand adventure, gritty street-level crime drama, goofy comedy, high fantasy, cosmic science fiction, etc. Something for everyone, with the audience free to pick and choose just the parts they like instead of feeling obligated to follow everything. A shared universe is meant to be enjoyable on both levels, whether you want to follow only certain parts of it or collect the entire whole.

There is also the reality that DC and Marvel never truly had the same type of shared universe. Marvel was more or less designed early on as a shared universe by a handful of creators (Lee, Kirby, Ditko, etc) and something of a Lee-imposed "house style." DC was a publisher with a series of standalone books (and even two separate lines, DC and All American), each with its own identity, disparate editorial/creatives teams and continuity that rarely crossed over for the first twenty to thirty years of its publishing history. Even team up books often seemed to take place in their own, separate, continuity (see, e.g, the collected works of Mr. Robert Haney). As a result, trying to force the characters into a single style or tone is going to be difficult, if not impossible. The better course of action is to recognize what works for a particular character and play off that.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Its starting to look like it. They never should have rebooted

That seems to be the case.

Now we got the first superman film that was just really break even maybe only eeking out a tiny profit

Yes, the Gunn Superman movie was released in 2025 with as much hype (including the ancillary markets) as any superhero film in recent memory, yet it was not the "big reinvention" (in content or success) the worst of a cohort of self-described "real Superman fans" claimed it would be, evidenced by its inability--with 2025 ticket prices--to earn more at the box office than its predecessor (12 years older) of the same name.

Eternally telling.

and we have supergirl that looks like it will lose millions. This is not looking good at all.

It is a disaster, but all behind that film convinced themselves that it was the "right" interpretation of the character befitting their vision and plans for their DC movies. Just imagine what is next for Gunn' DCU.

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.

Obviously, but that will not prevent Gunn and his cronies from adding the character to other films, which will be case in the Superman sequel.

Box office is still an indicator of a movies success of failure. You might not agree but when comparing superman to other successes like obsession there's no comparison. Obsession was much much more successful.

True.

 

[ichab]

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.




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.




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.

There was no better way. The choice was either kill Zod or let innocent people be killed by lasers. He told Zod to stop and the reply was NEVER. The villain left the hero no choice. So in those last seconds, the hero chose saving innocent people over the one person who was putting everyone's lives in danger. Very worthy of the S symbol in my book.

 

[Nerys Myk]

DC was a publisher with a series of standalone books (and even two separate lines, DC and All American), each with its own identity, disparate editorial/creatives teams and continuity that rarely crossed over for the first twenty to thirty years of its publishing history.

The notable exception being All-Star Comics which featured characters from both companies in the JSA.
Doctor Fate, Hourman, Sandman and the Spectre from DC
The Atom, the Flash, Green Lantern and Hawkman from All-American.
When they had to add some new members they chose one from DC (Starman) and one from AA (Doctor Mid-Nite)

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

There was no better way. The choice was either kill Zod or let innocent people be killed by lasers. He told Zod to stop and the reply was NEVER. The villain left the hero no choice. So in those last seconds, the hero chose saving innocent people over the one person who was putting everyone's lives in danger. Very worthy of the S symbol in my book.

Quite true. Then again, you're not demanding a character act like a 1950s ice cream truck vendor in a situation that's supposed to play as a deadly / out-of-time with only one reasonable option.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Why didn't Superman just cover up Zod's laser beam eyes with his arm? It would probably be fine for a short exposure and even if not, that's the kind of sacrifice Superman would make to preserve all life.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I enjoyed the film even if it wasn't the wild fun adventure I thought it would be. I admired the darker nature of the story in contrast to Superman but I think it leaned a little too hard into grunginess. Clearly it was trying to capture the essence of Guardians of the Galaxy without being a Gunn production but I think it fell too much into the Mad Max territory (and I say that as a fan of Fury Road). The result felt like a tonal clash as it was desperately striving to be not Superman while still leaning on the inherent goodness of Superman. I appreciate the intentions but I felt the execution was a bit off.

That said, I loved the character arcs for both Kara and Ruthye and how Kara tried to keep Ruthye from corrupting her soul (all thanks to Clark's influences). I'm sure I'm not the first person to point this out but Eve Ridley's performance reminds me a lot of Bella Ramsey's performance as Lyanna Mormont. Both young, feisty women who don't allow their small statures to prevent them making their presences known and they take shit from no one. I certainly look forward to seeing more of Ridley in films and shows, just as I do with Ramsey.

I could go either way with Ludo but I did like how completely different he was from Aquaman, although they were both carefree assholes.

I've only been paying a little attention from the sidelines in the DC thread but apparently the film isn't doing well at the box office and everyone is saying the sky is falling (not just for Supergirl but for Gunn's vision as a whole)? Or is that just the usual noise that can easily be ignored?

 

[ichab]

Quite true. Then again, you're not demanding a character act like a 1950s ice cream truck vendor in a situation that's supposed to play as a deadly / out-of-time with only one reasonable option.

It was the superhero version of a kobayashimaru. Supermans no win scenario. I was surprised by some of the backlash to it.

 

[JoeZhang]

I've only been paying a little attention from the sidelines in the DC thread but apparently the film isn't doing well at the box office and everyone is saying the sky is falling (not just for Supergirl but for Gunn's vision as a whole)? Or is that just the usual noise that can easily be ignored?

It bombed - its covered extensively in the industry press.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I enjoyed the film even if it wasn't the wild fun adventure I thought it would be. I admired the darker nature of the story in contrast to Superman but I think it leaned a little too hard into grunginess. Clearly it was trying to capture the essence of Guardians of the Galaxy without being a Gunn production but I think it fell too much into the Mad Max territory (and I say that as a fan of Fury Road). The result felt like a tonal clash as it was desperately striving to be not Superman while still leaning on the inherent goodness of Superman. I appreciate the intentions but I felt the execution was a bit off.

That said, I loved the character arcs for both Kara and Ruthye and how Kara tried to keep Ruthye from corrupting her soul (all thanks to Clark's influences). I'm sure I'm not the first person to point this out but Eve Ridley's performance reminds me a lot of Bella Ramsey's performance as Lyanna Mormont. Both young, feisty women who don't allow their small statures to prevent them making their presences known and they take shit from no one. I certainly look forward to seeing more of Ridley in films and shows, just as I do with Ramsey.

I could go either way with Ludo but I did like how completely different he was from Aquaman, although they were both carefree assholes.

I've only been paying a little attention from the sidelines in the DC thread but apparently the film isn't doing well at the box office and everyone is saying the sky is falling (not just for Supergirl but for Gunn's vision as a whole)? Or is that just the usual noise that can easily be ignored?

A little from column A and a little from column B. The movie is not being well received, but nobody other than segments of the fandom believe that Gunn's job or his vision is on the line.