"Supergirl," is the second big film in James Gunn and Peter Safran's new take on the DC cinematic Universe. "Superman," did quite well, and the second season of, "Peacemaker," which altered its continuity to take place in the same universe, was a hoot as well. "Supergirl," earned raves for Milly Alcock's performance, muted praise for Jason Momoa's Lobo, and was otherwise given a critical, "Meh," by many outlets. It proceeded to land roughly in theaters. I mean, it made less than, "Morbius," did in its opening weekend. "Supergirl," isn't the worst cinematic bomb ever despite dramatic headlines, but the indifference of reviewers and theatergoers is evident.
Some people have begun discussing whether a general toxicity in fandom is to blame. Other's have said it is proof female superheroes don't sell/Hollywood keeps failing them. Every superhero movie that struggles results in discussion of, "Superhero movie fatigue," and plenty of folks have already begun writing this off as, "Not a big deal." The argument already is going, "Supergirl was never a big thing, the real test is how that Green Lanterns show, and Clayface movie do!" which feels like a big example of, "Moving the goalposts," but whatever.
I do want to check out the new, "Supergirl," movie. That said, just I didn't see the latest, "Superman," until it had been out a couple of weeks, and I had the chance to view it, that'll probably be the case with, "Supergirl," for me too. At least if I go in with average-to-low expectations, I may very well conclude that it is better than people have been saying. Sure sounds like I will have much of the theater to myself when I do make it over there.
No comments:
Post a Comment