‘Supergirl’ flops at box office; lower than JFAD debut

[skaxboy 6,906]

I plan on seeing it but it’s pride weekend for me so a movie theater isn't the kind of dark room you would catch me in. 
 

It looks interesting and I like Lobo. I enjoyed last year’s Superman and this one looks fun. For sure gonna see Clayface. Haven’t started the new season of My Adventures With Superman, but it’s a cute series. The Bruce Timm Superman animated series is my default Superman. 
 

The Batman (Battinson) is so good. Penguin was amazing. I’m regularly checking for updates for the next Batman. I’m happy it being its own universe but also, I wonder how they will introduce Batman into the DCU. The DCEU was okay, so much potential but fell a bit flat.
 

The MCU has had a few misses but the future is promising.  I was up at 6am for my Spider-Man Brand New Day tickets and was able to snag some. Plenty of sold out Thursday and Friday showings already. I will be doing the same for Doomsday. 

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,606]

38 minutes ago, Creyk said:

Only hardcore comic fans care about this character and the actress actively antagonized them 3 separate times with her belligerent comments, so this kinda makes sense.

I'm a pretty big comic fan and she hasn't said anything antagonistic. Plus she's been proven right along the press trail every time. 

Edited June 29 by Roughhouse Dandy

[salty like sodium 2,259]

15 hours ago, River said:

Tbh, Supergirl was not a good choice for a full movie, you simply don't put the whole future of a NEW cinematic universe on a character like this one.. it's basically a career assassination for the actress.

In the comics she's an important character, but only comics readers knows her lore, mythos and importance to the whole story.. but for the GP she's basically the female superman and here it ends.

ah yes. let's forget that none of the avengers were relevant or important characters when their movies came out, and that that's exactly why Marvel still owned the movie rights, because no one wanted to buy those in ths 90s. a good strategy can introduce characters to an audience.

[River 127,355]

57 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

ah yes. let's forget that none of the avengers were relevant or important characters when their movies came out, and that that's exactly why Marvel still owned the movie rights, because no one wanted to buy those in ths 90s. a good strategy can introduce characters to an audience.

First MCU movies were: Iron Man, Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America

These characters were at least known from their cartoons.

Now Imagine if after Iron Man, they would have released a Hawkeye, Black Widow or a Nick Fury movie? would it be successful? probably not.

They release a Hulk movie, a character that already been established in pop culture.

It took them 3 years to release a movie of another character, Thor.

Also, it was all about the cinematic universe idea, that all is connected and at the end they will come together in The Avengers.

 

A character like Supergirl should have been introduced in a Superman movie, just like Black Widow was introduced in IM2 and Hawkeye in the Avengers.

[doppelganger 4,021]

It's out?

[Bronco 24,903]

DC is so bad at promoting their stuff

I didnt even know this film existed until the old superman called her ugly

[salty like sodium 2,259]

44 minutes ago, River said:

First MCU movies were: Iron Man, Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America

These characters were at least known from their cartoons.

Now Imagine if after Iron Man, they would have released a Hawkeye, Black Widow or a Nick Fury movie? would it be successful? probably not.

They release a Hulk movie, a character that already been established in pop culture.

It took them 3 years to release a movie of another character, Thor.

Also, it was all about the cinematic universe idea, that all is connected and at the end they will come together in The Avengers.

 

A character like Supergirl should have been introduced in a Superman movie, just like Black Widow was introduced in IM2 and Hawkeye in the Avengers.

I get that, I do feel like Supergirl is also well known enough as a character to audiences. She has been a staple in the Justice League Unlimited animation as well, then they had two TV shows for young girls with her as a main character (DC Superhero Girls and DC Superhero Girls reboot), so it's not like she's an unknown character in media. They then picked a pretty promising actress from a beloved franchise (House of the Dragon), and also put Jason Momoa in. The issue is the script, apparently, not living up to the potential. And the SUperman script was pretty shit, so I'm willing to believe that.

[salty like sodium 2,259]

3 minutes ago, Bronco said:

DC is so bad at promoting their stuff

I didnt even know this film existed until the old superman called her ugly

wait who called her ugly? 

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,606]

47 minutes ago, River said:

These characters were at least known from their cartoons.

Guardians of the Galaxy came out of nowhere and people were saying the same thing about them that you're saying about Supergirl before they actually saw the movie. The MCU even used them to introduce the infinity stones. At least DC introduced Supergirl at the end of Superman. 

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,606]

6 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

wait who called her ugly? 

Dean Cain's washed up MAGA a** along with the rest of the gaggle of conservatives wanting Sydney Sweeney for the part for whatever reason. And the annoyingly loud faction of cb movie incel stans 

9 minutes ago, Bronco said:

DC is so bad at promoting their stuff

I didnt even know this film existed until the old superman called her ugly

I thought they promoted Superman pretty well, but yeah, they kinda flopped with promoting Supergirl. I'm guessing they were trying to save money but LORD they needed to do more. I hope they'll amp up their efforts for Clayface/Lanterns but pretty positive they're gonna go big for Man of Tomorrow since it's the next mainline sequel. 

Edited June 29 by Roughhouse Dandy

[River 127,355]

27 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Guardians of the Galaxy came out of nowhere and people were saying the same thing about them that you're saying about Supergirl before they actually saw the movie. The MCU even used them to introduce the infinity stones. At least DC introduced Supergirl at the end of Superman. 

True but there were 9 movies before the movie was released and when every MCU movie was a cultural moment, also the Guardians had big names as well, Pratt, Bautista, Saldaña, Diesel and Bradley Cooper, casting is still a key to bring people to watch a movie

I'm not saying that the character is bad or the actress is bad, not at all, I do like Supergirl, I just think that it was not the right moment to put the whole future of the revamp DC universe on Supergirl and the actress's shoulders.

[River 127,355]

29 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

I get that, I do feel like Supergirl is also well known enough as a character to audiences. She has been a staple in the Justice League Unlimited animation as well, then they had two TV shows for young girls with her as a main character (DC Superhero Girls and DC Superhero Girls reboot), so it's not like she's an unknown character in media. They then picked a pretty promising actress from a beloved franchise (House of the Dragon), and also put Jason Momoa in. The issue is the script, apparently, not living up to the potential. And the SUperman script was pretty ****, so I'm willing to believe that.

the script issues is a typical Gunn thing, he likes to drastically change the characters and the lore from the comics.

The guardians in the comics are totally different than the movie, like Mantis is a human from earth for example, Drax was a human named Arthur Douglas and Thanos killed him and his family and the god Kronos moved his soul to a new god-like alien body that we know from the movie.

Like it's a nice lore but was changed to make the characters more cosmic and alien, it worked for the MCU because the guardians were new characters to the GP I guess.

[Roughhouse Dandy 13,606]

8 minutes ago, River said:

I just think that it was not the right moment to put the whole future of the revamp DC universe on Supergirl and the actress's shoulders.

I can somewhat agree with that. Like I mentioned earlier they 100% made this move because Supergirl is instrumental in the big story arc they're working towards a la Endgame in the MCU, but I think it may have been smarter to give her a limited series. But they already have a big tv slate established so I understand why they did what they did. They just put themselves in a hard position and had to keep it pushing. Regardless I do think as long as the merger doesn't throw a wrench in their plans, the DC future looks bright! 

[Bronco 24,903]

36 minutes ago, salty like sodium said:

wait who called her ugly? 

Dean Cain the ice agent

[River 127,355]

1 minute ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

I can somewhat agree with that. Like I mentioned earlier they 100% made this move because Supergirl is instrumental in the big story arc they're working towards a la Endgame in the MCU, but I think it may have been smarter to give her a limited series. But they already have a big tv slate established so I understand why they did what they did. They just put themselves in a hard position and had to keep it pushing. Regardless I do think as long as the merger doesn't throw a wrench in their plans, the DC future looks bright! 

yeah I'm pretty excited for this this new universe, I really need a good Harley-Joker movie, some kind of Harleen adaptation.

I think the best thing for DC is to ditch the humor and the PG-13 kind of movies and just go PG-16 or even M and really shine with the dark psychopathic themes of their villains.