PatAg said:

---

TyHolden said:

---

PatAg said:

---

TyHolden said:

---

Complete Idiot said:

---

Clay Travis just another culture vulture chasing profits off algorithms.

---

yes, he's no different than Joy Reid, Rachel Maddow, or any of the left's blowhards. is he wrong though? I don't know the economies of the movie but I doubt he's going out on a limb there.

---

Why would you go to any of those morons for their opinions on a movie though?
I would say for their opinion on anything, but thats a different topic

---

Travis didn't give an opinion on the movie. He's just talking economics. And yes, there are many reports that they will not break even without some kind of ticket surge after opening weekend (not likely).

---

So why would his opinion matter at all then, in regard to seeing the movie.
Surely you see the absurdity of this?

Other people have talked about critics they trust not liking something, and thats definitely a part of how I decide what to spend money on in theaters. Not all critics, but you find a few that tend to have similar opinions on previous movies as you and they are a good barometer.

---

Reading is FUNdamental. Never gave an opinion. Try again.

edit: I take that back. The LLMs he's using are probably biased. There's your opinion.

AI is indoctrinating Americans pic.twitter.com/LwWLMkH4iH

— Marc Thiessen (@marcthiessen) June 26, 2026

Jared Leto’s Morbius moggin Supergirl 🥀 https://t.co/Lw72eaBDhS pic.twitter.com/x3tQyhciER

— Daniel Dami Biu (@damiebi10) June 28, 2026

jokershady said:

---

The Marvels opened at a tad over 46 million domestically ….theres a chance this thing opens under that….

---

hell…while I kinda expected this I didn't think it was going to get beat by The Marvels by THAT much….

Ouch…

PatAg said:

---

Lol

---

I know. We're doomed. Good thing Elon controls one of them.

PatAg said:

---

double aught said:

---

PatAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Where the heck did all the criticisms of this movie come from? What I just saw was not worthy of such crap as has been polluting movie threads prior to release now for a while. That is not to say that Supergirl was a masterpiece on the level of, say, Iron Man or Superman: the Movie. In a word, it was fine.

I didn't think I would like Kara based on the trailers, but she actually had an arc, finishing as a different person than she was at the start. I also liked the flashbacks of her back story. Lobo was great, a seriously fun yet psychotic character that I was not previously familiar with. The vengeful girl was a good character as well. The primary villain isn't going to make anyone think of Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor or either iteration of General Zod, but he served the story pretty well.

The movie stagnated a bit when Supergirl goes to a planet with twin suns, one a green one that impacted her like Kryptonite. It felt like she was out of action for too much time in a movie that runs less than 2 hours. But when the green sun went down and the yellow sun rose, her return to action was pretty cool.

I don't like the visual style in Gunn's DC universe.It worked for Guardins of the Galaxy, bit I don't believe it works for these characters. And the music either sucked or was not memorable. My opinion, these movies need a big score like the original Superman or The Avengers movies had.

Is this a movie I will see again in a theater? Nope. I will watch it on streaming though. It was not at all a bad movie, and I do find myself curious about what was cut out. 7/10

---

Agree with everything you wrote. Thought the movie was good, not great. Worth seeing in theaters if you are into superhero stuff, but also probably fine to just see at home if you are busy.

I was going to say this was the first time the music in a Gunn film didn't land, but I realize he didn't actually make this film so that makes sense.

Everything else you wrote, nothing to add too on the movie.

I think people are letting themselves get turned off movies before they come out for weird reasons in the last few years. Not sure what is up with that trend, but it's odd.

---

I keep reading this, so now I'm curious. What songs were in the movie?

---

probably the worst offender everyone is referencing was a weird cover of "The Middle" , the Jimmy Eat World song

---

The movie really is not a bad movie, but this song in the middle of the biggest part of the movie should be studied for worst musical choice in the history of movies

"But she's a playwright!"

The writer for Supergirl literally only had a short film in her resume, she was hired cause of nepotism and her gender. A clear example of DEI hiring ruining the quality of a product pic.twitter.com/AY6Pi3WR2F

— Kaguya’s Top Gal (@hayasaka_aryan) June 29, 2026

Good lord, you are OBSESSED.

For all the **** I get about defending movies, you are just as pathological in your need to relentlessly mock anything you perceive as even POSSIBLY being the slightest bit woke, despite having ZERO evidence to back up your claims.

Despite next to no complaints of woke from those who have seen the movie.

Despite most people in this very thread, who have seen the movie, actually enjoying the movie for the most part.

Despite its 76% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Despite playwrights making the leap from stage to screen all the damn time.

Yet, in this particular instance, hiring a female writer to write a female-led superhero movie must be DEI!!! She couldn't possibly have given a good pitch or written a good script, that then got mangled in the filmmaking process, as so many good script do. Nope! It's DEI! Also... what nepotism? She's related to no one in the industry, save for her husband, who's basically a "nobody." Rather, she earned a Fine Arts in Theater degree from the Boston Conservatory, was an actor and playwright for 15 years, then... made the leap to films. That an INCREDIBLY normal trajectory.

I swear, you give me so much crap for trusting certain Hollywood types, but anyone who appears to "confirm" your worldview, you'll use as "evidence" just as much, no matter if it's complete bull**** or not.

"Good lord, you are OBSESSED"

>Proceeds to write full-page rebuttal.

Take er easy bud, just enjoying reactions across X to this dumpster fire.

But for real, you're in the industry.

If you're involved in that process and you know how much this movie will cost to make and what the stakes are, do you go with this novice? I'm not even saying she's a bad writer, but she was clearly out of her depth for this and was part of delivering this expensive turd. Why not go with someone proven that you can have confidence in. Would it being a dude just be out of the question? I don't think you'd have gone with her given the options and the prospects, so not sure why you feel the need to defend it.

Do you even see any movies in theaters?

I don't think enough people on here saw it to sustain that discussion. Might wanna check Reddit.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

But for real, you're in the industry.

If you're involved in that process and you know how much this movie will cost to make and what the stakes are, do you go with this novice? I'm not even saying she's a bad writer, but she was clearly out of her depth for this and was part of delivering this expensive turd. Why not go with someone proven that you can have confidence in. Would it being a dude just be out of the question? I don't think you'd have gone with her given the options and the prospects, so not sure why you feel the need to defend it.

---

How do you know she was out of her depth? Again, as rhutton125 said, she was given several other projects after this, including both Teen Titans and Wonder Woman. Gunn/DC wouldn't entrust with her with those properties (one of them massive) because of "DEI" or if they thought she can't handle them. They clearly had all the confidence in the world in her. To that end, you keep ignoring the fact that the script was universally praised for months by insiders, most of them not even involved with the movie, who had no reason to bull***** As I've said countless times now, rather, something likely went wrong in the production/post-production phase, where there were far more cooks in the kitchen. Do I know that for a fact? No. But it's the most likely explanation at this point, all things considered.

As for the writer otherwise being a dude, you can disagree with this approach all you want, but there's just no way a studio on a superhero project like this, with a female lead, when give the choice and a blank slate, would go with both a male writer *and* male director. Right or wrong, the optics simply wouldn't look good, there would be endless *****ing online, think piece after think piece would be written, etc. So, seeing as there are far more male action directors than female, the safe bet was picking a woman to write it first.

Either way, it's not like WB/DC has their pick of the litter. Their desired writer(s) not only have to want to do the job, which isn't always the case, they have to be available to do the job. And great writers aren't just sitting around waiting by the phone. They're busy as hell. I literally have to help find writers for projects for a living and it's really, really, really hard, it takes forever, and is honestly a miracle whenever it actually works out. So, instead, when someone unexpectedly comes to you, and not only has a great take, but seems more than capable, more often than not you're going to jump at the chance to not spend the next two months trying to find an ever better fit.

The one flaw in your argument TC is that you do admit the hire was DEI to a certain degree....they were absolutely going to hire a woman to write the story because this was a female led story about a woman. In other words, whoever they hired for this job had to qualify as being a woman before they had to qualify as being a good writer. It's the same logic that caused them to put the writer's name above the director's name in all of their advertisements for this movie.

And no offense but i'm going to ignore what your personal friend told you about the script. Your friend might not know anything about comics, or supergirl, or superheroes, or about the DC universe and how to write a superhero movie.

Just because James Gunn, or someone, preemptively gave her the nod to write Wonder Woman (another woman-led film, so certainly no DEI in that thought process, right?) or Teen titans doesn't mean that this script was actually good and that she's a good screenwriter. You've already acknowledged that the script was bound to be written by a woman and she just may have been the only woman available. James gunn may have liked her take on it and greenlit it simply because her take was clearly a knockoff subpar version of a James Gunn movie (dude does have an ego).

But I don't think it matters because I don't believe either one of those movies are going to get made now.

Is it really DEI to work under the assumption that a woman is better suited to write a female character led movie?

I don't know about Hollywood but in the rest of Corporate America management doubles down on bad hires all the time and when it's a DEI/protected class that they can't fire they just let them fail upwards so they're someone else's problem. So my guess is she was moved on to other projects/given new opportunities to prove she was the right choice and give production cover on the press junkets.

Also, I'm confused on why she isn't considered a DEI hire when you're saying they went with a female screenwriter to balance out having a male director. Does the comic book movie going demographic care about stuff like that?

DEI is about needing to meet an arbitrary quota for quota's sake.

Wanting a woman to either be the writer or the director of a female-led blockbuster is just common sense. It's no different than wanting an action writer or director for an action flick or a comedy writer or director for a comedy. Ideally, you want someone with expertise in the subject matter executing the material. It's as simple as that.

Does that mean that men can't write for women? Of course not. Does that women can't write for women? Not at all. Both obviously happen all the time. But when starting from scratch, meaning no creatives were attached yet and/or this wasn't one director's vision from the start, I completely understand the impulse to want to have a woman in one of the two main authoritative roles - writer or director - not to check a box but rather to aid in giving the female lead a female perspective. I don't understand why that's at all an issue.

As for the script itself, I'm sorry but this…

Quote:

---

Just because James Gunn, or someone, preemptively gave her the nod to write Wonder Woman (another woman-led film, so certainly no DEI in that thought process, right?) or Teen titans doesn't mean that this script was actually good and that she's a good screenwriter.

---

… is an insane point. What other reason would Gunn have for hiring her to write THREE of the first DCU projects if he didn't think she was good screenwriter? Otherwise, this is complete conspiracy theory territory. Are you insinuating that he was sleeping with her? That he's so woke he'd risk his career/position giving a woman those massive jobs, just to appease the left? I don't even understand your point.

All I know is that this whole thing reeks of some of you bending over backwards to make a mountain out of a mole hill. It simply missed the mark. Happens all the damn time.

Oh, and as for my friend? She was ONE person who read the script way back when and liked it. Again, there were many, many others.

G.I.Bro said:

---

Is it really DEI to work under the assumption that a woman is better suited to write a female character led movie?

---

Well, a man wrote the comic book this movie was based on and his story was a 1000% better job than her version of it. So, to assume that a script about a woman would be better off written by a woman is clearly incorrect. To hire solely based on gender is sexist. And sometimes that might be the correct decision. If this were a movie about a woman doing female things (a la Sex in the City, or The Devil Wears Prada), then sure, hire a female writer. But this is actually just a superhero movie about a superhero saving the day. Its just that the superhero happens to be female. There's nothing about the character motivations or arc that demand she be written by a female scrednwriter (would Alien have been better if written by a woman?). There's no need to mandate the screenwriter be female for this particular movie unless you're worried about how it looks to the vocal progressive minority.

TCTTS said:

---

DEI is about needing to meet an arbitrary quota for quota's sake.

Wanting a woman to either be the writer or the director of a female-led blockbuster is just common sense. It's no different than wanting an action writer or director for an action flick or a comedy writer or director for a comedy. Ideally, you want someone with expertise in the subject matter executing the material. It's as simple as that.

Does that mean that men can't write for women? Of course not. Does that women can't write for women? Not at all. Both obviously happen all the time. But when starting from scratch, meaning no creatives were attached yet and/or this wasn't one director's vision from the start, I completely understand the impulse to want to have a woman in one of the two main authoritative roles - writer or director - not to check a box but rather to aid in giving the female lead a female perspective. I don't understand why that's at all an issue.

As for the script itself, I'm sorry but this…

Quote:

---

Just because James Gunn, or someone, preemptively gave her the nod to write Wonder Woman (another woman-led film, so certainly no DEI in that thought process, right?) or Teen titans doesn't mean that this script was actually good and that she's a good screenwriter.

---

… is an insane point. What other reason would Gunn have for hiring her to write THREE of the first DCU projects if he didn't think she was good screenwriter? Otherwise, this is complete conspiracy theory territory. Are you insinuating that he was sleeping with her? That he's so woke he'd risk his career/position giving a woman those massive jobs, just to appease the left? I don't even understand your point.

All I know is that this whole thing reeks of some of you bending over backwards to make a mountain out of a mole hill. It simply missed the mark. Happens all the damn time.

Oh, and as for my friend? She was ONE person who read the script way back when and liked it. Again, there were many, many others.

---

No, I'm not suggesting Gunn was sleeping with her, lol or anything like that. I'm simply saying that Gunn approved a lame script, and he did so because it appealed to his senses. But just because it appealed to his senses doesn't mean it was a good script.

There's plenty of articles indicating and outright stating that the script choices were her's and that Gunn agreed with her. Including Gunn mandating that the director go with her original ending without changes...an ending that's been ripped by many many people.

And there's excuses being thrown out by both "sides" in this thread.

Let's be honest about Gunn - he's had success with the Guardians movies (good movies which I liked but admittedly that successful in part because they were in the wildly successful MCU). Superman made money but wasn't nearly as successful as it should have been.

The 2021 Suicide Squad was released directly to streaming, so no telling how successful thaf would have been in the theaters. And Peacemaker, although I enjoyed it, was not a huge streaming hit.

That's not the resume of someone infalliable and above questioning.

TCTTS said:

---

I'm not saying Gunn has impeccable judgment or isn't partly to blame here. Go check out the things I've been saying about him in the DCU thread for my thoughts in that regard. In short, I absolutely agree that his sensibilities probably aren't the best fit for head of the DCU. But that's a different conversation entirely than "he shouldn't have hired a female playwright because DEI."

---

I don't want to go too far down the DEI rabbit hole because I'm not the one who originally brought that up (neither were you) and I'm not so adamant about it that I'm going to die on that hill. I was simply pointing out that if we can admit her gender was a defining reason she was considered for the role, when IMO the movie didn't really demand a screenwriter of a specific gender, then the optics point to it being a sexist/DEI hire.

I think using DEI in this context muddies the water. DEI is hiring someone based on gender or race when that has no meaningful role otherwise in their performance or work.

In storytelling, gender or race CAN have meaningful impacts on the final product. It's just introducing different perspectives that can make things feel more authentic. Telling a story about a woman? Yeah it's probably a good idea to have a woman involved somewhere. That's not DEI, it just seems smart?

Now I haven't see this movie and I don't plan to until it's streaming, but it seems like it just failed in ways lots of other comic book movies have failed. Why do we have to add to it that the screenplay was written by a female and rip her when loads of other crappy comic movies have sucked that were written by males who probably had no business writing those movies too? It's like these complaints are DEI as well. The screenplay cant be uniquely bad just because she is a woman, right? Can't it be just as bad as all the other bad ones out there?

I, not speaking for anyone else, am not saying the movie sucked because she's a woman. And you're ignoring what I said about the story (I have read the comic). The character motivations and arc in the comic are not exclusive to being a woman. This movie absolutely could have been written by a man, just like the original comic was, because gender didn't matter to the story. That's MY point...they didn't need to look for a female screenwriter.