I'VE been a Superman comic book collector, since 1960, when I was age 6. Having amassed thousands of comic books over the decades and having been written into an actual Superman comic book story in 2008, I'm no average fan of all-things Krypton.
But imagine to my shock when another "Supergirl" movie is produced and released in the summer of 2026.
There is just one, only one single comic book that ever, ever disgusted me so much that I actually threw it away in the trash ... and that is the Supergirl comic that the latest movie is based on. The artwork in that comic was horrendously bad and the storyline was both lackluster, uncreative and even boring. ("Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow," 2021.)
Why would anyone make a movie based on that comic, the worst-ever in my 66-year history of DC Comics? And, there's no way that comic sold well enough to logically or economically be made into a big screen movie.
Yes, the movie's inspiration strikes a nerve with me.
Enter James Gunn.
First, he did only an average job on the 2025 "Superman" movie. It could have been so much better. And, he changed what is to me a cardinal principle of Superman legend --- he made Krypto Supergirl's dog, not Superboy's or Superman's. (You don't mess with such long-standing legends and this male ownership of the canine goes back to 1955, a year after I was born. And, to be fair, Supergirl had both a super cat and a super horse in her early comic books years.)
I'm a dog lover and yet does anyone else not find it odd that Gunn made Krypto such a key part of both of the latest "Super" movies? Or far worse, that Krypto is the one that needs oodles of help in both movies, as he seems to get hurt more and be less invulnerable than Supergirl or Superman?
Did Gunn not read some of the past Superman comics where Krypto became absolute savage in especially protecting his owner and usually held his own ground in conflicts?
(Gunn's Krypto is also all artificial CGI too.)
In addition, Gunn apparently has no accurate understanding of comic books, or super-hero stories. They are primarily a male domain and nothing one will ever do will change that fact. (But, obviously with a woke mindset, he thought a Supergirl movie, based on a sub-par comic book, of his making would be perfect to follow a reboot of Superman.
"Supergirl" comics have come and gone many times over the decades in DC comics and they never last. Will DC never learn from its own past?
Other than the anomaly of CW's "Supergirl" TV series, which was very, very good, ever other "Supergirl" movie, TV or comic book attempt has never done well, or went the distance.
No, Supergirl is just an accessory character, as the history of DC Comics has proven over and over again.
(I sold all of my old Supergirl comics years ago, as they seemed the least in my vast collection and none of the stories therein were that good.)
Gunn missed the mark with "Supergirl." Now, if he had made, say the DC animated movie, "Superman: Unbound" (2013) into the 2026 major motion picture, it would have been a hit -- and that animated movie included Supergirl in a high standing role and not a woke way.
I haven't seen the new "Supergirl" movie and I won't pay to. The movie previews and "honest" reviews are all I need to go by. The reviews that laud the new "Supergirl" movie are likely being paid to say so, or they are written by woke folk, who are the a minority of total comic book/movie fans.
(Someone months down the road will have a DVD copy of the movie and let me see it for free....)
No comments:
Post a Comment