James Gunn's Job Is Definitely At Risk as His Woke Partygirl Movie Supergirl Not Only Opens Worse Than Morbius, but Suffers Humiliating -73% 2nd Weekend Drop

The movie never should have been made, period.

First of all, they just released Superman last year. Their follow-up is the Superman-knockoff character Supergirl, who has the same costume and same backstory (pretty much) and same powers. The only difference? She's a Strong Empowered Woman, and hooboy, people just can't get enough of those these days.

Even if you think Supergirl is a big enough character to do a movie about -- she's really not, she's a C level character -- surely you don't make a movie about this gender-flipped clone less than a year after the last Super-Family movie.

Worse yet, because Supergirl is so similar to Superman, and they were releasing the movie so close on the heels of Superman, they decided to completely change Supergirl's personality to make her seem different from her more famous Kryptonian cousin.

The Supergirl of the comics is the ultimate good girl. Just like Superman is a boy scout, Supergirl is a girl scout.

But they just did a movie about a Kryptonian boy scout so they changed Supergirl into a "messy," selfish, "trauma scarred" (can we stop making every character scarred by trauma) alcoholic party-girl. (Hollywood also doesn't like making morally good characters generally, and especially not morally good female characters, because women shouldn't do Emotional Labor for you Racists.)

So nothing like the actual Supergirl. And because alcoholic party-girls are usually -- sorry to be so direct -- promiscuous, this is the last movie a parent would want to take a young girl to see. That should be the target audience, parents bringing young girls to the movie to have a role model, but they made the character a substance-abusing partygirl so who's going to bring their daughter to that?

In fairness, Supergirl does pass out on a toilet (as one does) but doesn't have promiscuous sex with any rando dudes.

But that's not because she's moral. It's because all Empowered Female Characters must be lesbian-coded and have no sexual or romantic interest in males at all.

So again: Most parents will not want to take a young girl to see a movie about a drug-abusing lesbian.

So because Superman came out less than a year ago, they had to show that Supergirl isn't your grandfather's Supergirl by making her a grungy drunken whore.

If that's the only way to differentiate her from Superman -- then don't make the movie at all. It will be a disaster.

Which is what it was.

The movie made less than $38 million its opening weekend. Warner Bros kept lying and claiming that it made $38 million, but many disbelieved them, because they saw the daily numbers getting worse everyday. But Warner Bros. kept saying it made $38 million because they didn't want the real headline -- Supergirl made $37.1 million, less even than the disaster called Joker: Folie a Deux.

And while it opened so low you'd think it would have nowhere lower to go, you'd be wrong.

It also has a huge drop in its second weekend, one of the worst drops of any superhero movie.

'Supergirl' suffers catastrophic 73% drop, gets obliterated at box office by patriotic 'Young Washington'

Friday grosses plunged 80% in week two, with domestic totals stalling at $58.4M against a $275M cost

James Gunn was supposed to revamp and revitalize DC Studios at Warner Bros. The director of "Guardians of the Galaxy" would, in theory, bring the type of overarching creative vision that Kevin Feige had so successfully demonstrated at Marvel Studios.

Two movies into Gunn's vision of DC Studios, it's safe to say that this reboot has been an unmitigated failure.

The 2025 edition of "Superman" was, at best, a moderate success. While hardly the type of franchise-changing success the studio and Gunn hoped for, box office results and reviews were acceptable, if not a bit underwhelming. Thanks in some part to Gunn's bewildering decision to tell audiences that the film was about politics, calling the Superman character an "immigrant."

...

Alcock spent most of the press campaign making herself as unlikeable as possible, insulting potential moviegoers, bizarrely claiming that audiences felt "ownership" of her body, then doubling down after the inevitable backlash. The trailers looked awful, with a predictably sloppy anti-hero feel, atrocious visual effects, and an uninteresting plot and villain.

Still, as recently as May, hopes were that "Supergirl" could make as much as $65 million in its opening weekend. In actuality? It made just over $37 million.

With an estimated production budget of around $175 million, and a massive marketing campaign that likely cost Warner Bros. at least $100 million, the film needed to reach at least $450-500 million globally to break even. That opening weekend, and an anemic international debut, meant it was tracking towards a significant loss. The only hope? That positive word of mouth would overcome the apathy towards the film's plot and the off-putting remarks from Alcock.

Well, we now have the second weekend box office data, and not only did word of mouth not help "Supergirl," it may have destroyed it.

Friday grosses dropped an astonishing 80.4% from opening day on June 26 to just $3.6 million. Saturday estimates are for just $2.6 million, another 77% drop, despite the Independence Day holiday. All told, it's a remarkable 74% drop from the first weekend to the second. Total domestic gross for "Supergirl" now sits at just $58.4 million. On a $275 million production, from a major studio, with a massive marketing campaign, and the creative backing of James Gunn.

If the third weekend has a similar fall, grosses would plummet to just $2.49 million. For an entire weekend. A film that needed to make $200 million+ at US theaters to break even may not even reach $80 million. And considering the woeful international numbers, it's going to cost Warner Bros. hundreds of millions in losses.

It its first weekend, this very female-skewing movie was attended by 59% men, and only 41% women and girls -- the very audience it was designed, theoretically, to appeal to.

And you know what that means -- it's time for the leftwing media to blame men for women refusing to show up a movie supposedly made for the female audience.

The film received a "rotten" rating from the review-aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes. Ticket buyers were similarly unimpressed, giving "Supergirl" a B-minus grade in CinemaScore exit polls.

...

Still, box office analysts on Sunday noted an uncomfortable truth: Female-led superhero movies have been rejected almost uniformly over the past five years or so, perhaps reflecting a resurgent misogyny among the core fan base, which is largely male. Before its release, "Supergirl" became caught up in a now-familiar cycle of online abuse, with some fanboys attacking Milly Alcock's casting and appearance. Warner Bros. executives said they were surprised by both the ferocity of the backlash and its reach, believing the culture had evolved past that sort of campaign.

I repeat: 59% of tickebuyers were men. Yeah, a specific gender failed this film, and that gender was female.

I don't like Bill Burr, but this reminds me of his rant about women attacking men for not giving the WNBA good ratings: "You complained and complained so we gave you a stupid women's basketball league, and now you're telling us we have to watch it for you, too??!"

BTW: I don't mind Supergirl being a "girl boss" because, well, canonically she's one of the most powerful beings in the DC Universe, so it's not like they're reinventing the character (as they did with Captain Marvel) to make her a girlboss.

So the girlbosshood is justified... by the lore, at least.

But man oh man, are people just tired of girlbosses, whether justified by the lore or not. I hear Furiosa was pretty good, but people rejected it anyway.

We're just tired of it. Hollywood keeps making the same movie (basically) about the same female character (basically). How often do they think we want to keep seeing the same movie about the same unlikable bitch character?

Speaking of woke movies and woke marketing: Lupita Nyongo, an actual African woman playing the blonde Macedonian woman Helen of Troy, decides that now is the best possible time to attempt to #Cancel the author of The Odyssey, Homer:

Fuck you.

I won't be seeing this. I don't think the film will lose money -- Christopher Nolan's fanbase is zealous and passionate -- but I do think this would-be blockbuster will be a bit of a disappointment, because we are just sick of it.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 04:30 PM

| Access Comments