The B-List Character Problem (Supergirl Review and Post-Mortem)

 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.

Superman - A true revival of the Comic Film

 I saw Superman (2025) twice this weekend, and will likely see it a third time soon, and who knows, maybe a fourth. It's easily the best superhero/comic movie they have done in the last several years, and the interesting choices made by James Gunn to lean heavily into the comic book reality of the movie has, I feel, paid off in spades. This feels like an actual comic book movie, they could have easily called it "Action Comics Issue #1024" and that would have been perfectly okay. It's an optimistic, uplifting film filled with crass villainy that gets soundly defeated, and it does not shy away from providing allegorical content that one can readily read in to. It's the opposite of most Marvel films, in other words.

Gunn's prior comic book outings are starting to reflect a sort of form and style that is consistent, which I suppose is good, as it means you know what you are getting with him, but it does mean you might watch this movie with a recognition of his particular style in the craft. For example, it is now clear to me that every movie Gunn makes has to have that moment in it where someone, usually with a small but incredibly dangerous object, proceeds with what can only be described as a madcap moment of violence that plays out in the background as a sort of montage or collage, often entirely in one take. We've seen it repeatedly in Guardians of the Gaaxy (standing out with Yondu's arrow sequence in the second GotG film), Harly Quinn's hallucinatory rampage in The Suicide Squad, and now Mr. Terrific and his T-Balls vs. Lex Luthor's army of raptors and mad scientists in Hawaiian shirts.

If you've heard about the movie being "woke" then be assured it is, but that is not to the detriment of the film. The "wokeness" of this film is just optimism, human decency, and a desire to see the old, better America stand out...the one that used to care about being decent and good, instead of cruel and spiteful. Salon's review describes this better than I ever could. 

I will say, if you feel (like I have) that the golden age of Superman films was with Christopher Reeves in Superman from 1978 and Superman II, then I think you are likely going to find this film to be a worthy successor. The worst thing I can say about it is that it starts rather jarringly in what feels like the middle of the third act of a normal film, but this only ultimately lends further to the unique take of the film, and I enjoyed it even more on a second watch. A+++! My favorite film so far this year, maybe even this decade.

New Batman V. Superman Trailer

This trailer is much better, and sheds more light on what the film will be about....



So...The Zuckerberg Luthor is okay, I can live with that. Zod as a reanimated Doomsday? Interesting. Wonder Woman's surprise appearance: amazing. Still keen to see what the new Aquaman is going to be like. (Also still wishing they tied all of this to the Flash/Arrow continuity....sigh)

It's starting to look like 2016 really will be a great year for DC fans!