I saw Supergirl last week, a bit late but it was a fun movie. Not a great movie, mind you; I haven't thought much more about it beyond the fact that it was a fun romp and managed to hit a fair number of good storytelling beats while still being a fairly traditional story. The graphic novel it is based off of had more nuance and was less "action-y" than the movie, of course. But overall not bad. Milly Alcock does a good take on Supergirl, Jason Momoa makes a much better Lobo than he did Aquaman, and the smaller scale and feel of the story makes it a fun sort of one-and-done adventure.
But! The film has done poorly at the box office, and it is easy to see why. For one thing, Supergirl has always been a B (maybe even C) tier lister in the DC roster of superheroes. Now sure, James Gunn has managed to take some seriously obscure characters from both DC and Marvel and elevate them, but those are usually characters working in an ensemble cast, or who collectively have a dynamic range going on. In Supergirl we have really only got three key characters (Supergirl, the young girl seeking revenge whose name escapes me, and the criminally under-utilized Lobo) and a villain so generally lame he is worthy of a Marvel casting.
But that can't be the reason no one showed up to the movie, though. I think the reason is ultimately pretty basic: Supergirl is a B-tier character, one who is better used as a supporting cast for an A-lister like Superman. Her only other claim to fame is some TV show appearances and a 80's movie that is generally only looked upon fondly with very thick rose colored glasses. Her comic is never a hit, and often targeting the younger crowd in a way that only older comic writers and artists can fail to do so ("Hey, Kids," type Buscemi moment type stuff). DC does this a lot, in fact, and juggles between trying to produce hip anime-style feeling comics for the young crowd that generally doesn't read comics, and also pushing out comics for the aging fanbase doing geriatric callbacks to references from obscure fifties and sixties characters that no one but the most diehard obscure fans care about anymore. It's an ongoing DC problem.
Still, even that can't fully explain the reason no one turned up. I have two more ideas on why this movie had no legs, and one of them is an unpleasant notion but I still think explains it:
First: The movie is dirty, dark and miserably brown and grey. It is a modern film with no vibrant color or life to it, and it feels like a deliberate style choice in the film's cinematography, which is a shame because Superman last year was a very colorful, vibrant and fun movie that felt like a comic book come to life. So people who saw the Supergirl trailer would notice this, and notice that it was advertising a dour, miserable and unhappy storyline in sharp contrast with the ambitiously fun and upbeat Superman film.
Second: Aside from Supergirl being a B-lister and the trailers advertising a darker take on a chaaracter that the comic books often depict as a teenage girl's superhero (just read some recent issues of her recent books), there's Milly Alcock herself. She is a good actress who portrays an angsty, stressed and unhappy character struggling to find her place in the DC universe, and this is conveyed in the advterising for the film. But she is also....and I feel bad even commenting on this....not the prettiest woman. She is hard-edged and has exactly the right face and demeanour for this character I feel, but she is not a "pretty" person by conventional pop culture blockbuster standards. For the generic large crowd of unwashed movie going masses I feel her presence and appearance is a hard sell. This is a shame because she really is good in the role, but when you contrast her with the way Supergirl is normally depicted in the comics, I'd suggest that the hard edge of Milly is not typical of this character's design, and that someone like Samara Weaving or Dakota Fanning would be more "popular" fits. And this sort of sucks, because I like Milly Alcock in the role, but I just don't feel like her style and appearance is something that the superficial masses could manage. And that also rather sucks, because I think it helps explain why a lot of people saw the poster or the trailer and just decided they can wait for streaming on this one.
There is also the fact that this movie is surprisingly violent for a character who in a lot of current comics is clearly marketed at a younger teen girl crowd. If I had a young daughter and took her to this movie I think it would be a serious shock if prior exposure to Supergirl was entirely based on TV and 80's film appearances, or the more juvenile comics currently out there. It's the same problem the Mandalorian and Grogu had, where you have some major carnage happening in a movie that has a happy golucky animatronic puppet as a main character in it.
Okay, rant off! I give Supergirl a solid B+ for the record and now look forward to the Clayface movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment