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?

---

Come on man, we all know how to write a woman. Just think of a man and then take away all reason and accountability.

I saw the movie. I agree with the other comments that it is "fine". I like the portrayal of Supergirl as a more troubled anti-hero. It differentiates her from Superman. I thought Alcock played the role well and I like her as the actress in that version of Supergirl.

I thought the villain and story were a bit weak. It seemed like he was just a vanilla bad guy. The whole "male only race that steals women" doesn't make sense. Not sure how that race could ever survive.

If they were going a similar route, I thought they could have made him more of a space version of a psychotic South American drug cartel boss. You could still do the human trafficking angle and the audience can connect him to real bad guys that are out there in the real world. That would have set up a more compelling story for Supergirl as the anti-hero. They tried to pay off the comment she makes in the trailer about the difference between her and Superman with the death at the end. But they could have really set that up and made the movie a more compelling social commentary on "what is the right way to handle truly violent/evil criminals". She knows once she leaves, he's going to go back to harming all these people. Superman would have gone the arrest and rehabilitate route. She knows this guy won't ever change and will continue to harm people and makes the rational decision to end him and his crew and their terror over these people.

That's the same movie with a better story arc. Overall, it was worth the popcorn and beer I got to have. Don't feel like I wasted 2 hours, but walked away feeling like it should have been more.

.

It just seems like you are missing what the genesis of the movie is. She pitched the script and they liked her take, so she wrote it. And they apparently liked her script. At what point was sexism involved here?

The sexism seems to be on the back end here, where, because she is a women, she is being held to some standard that we don't hold the failed male screenwriters of other terrible movies. Do we assume motives about why their screenplays were picked? Neoptism? Maybe they paid off the producers? Maybe they got the gig because they are buddies with the right people?

When a screenplay is bad....people typically rip on the producers/directors for letting that get before cameras. Who the screenwriter is doesn't matter at that point. How did they let that script get shot? How did they not try to clean it up in post? Why did they cut what they cut? Etc.

That is all I am saying. If the screenwriter of this movie was a dude, and it played just as terribly, no one would be tweeting about this dude.

That's a lot of useless words.

Here are the facts: Hollywood has led the charge with DEI. The mere fact they made it a thing leaves a shadow of doubt on ANY future movie or show, if a woman or minority is in any way involved in writing, directing, production, or acting. This is what DEI does. It leaves doubt as to whether someone got to where they are on merit or quota. This is why many of us HATE DEI. It's not that we hate women or minorities. We hate the idea of merit being in question.

You can post all the multi paragraph posts you want. The fact is this is the direct consequence of Hollywood policies. This was not a talking point until Hollywood made it a talking point. The "right" didn't just invent this **** out of thin air. The response is a reactionary one.

ETA: I also believe it's a shame this is the case. There are a lot of amazing and talented people of both genders and all races who could bring so much to the industry. But Hollywood is responsible for this perception.

veryfuller said:

---

It just seems like you are missing what the genesis of the movie is. She pitched the script and they liked her take, so she wrote it. And they apparently liked her script. At what point was sexism involved here?

The sexism seems to be on the back end here, where, because she is a women, she is being held to some standard that we don't hold the failed male screenwriters of other terrible movies. Do we assume motives about why their screenplays were picked? Neoptism? Maybe they paid off the producers? Maybe they got the gig because they are buddies with the right people?

When a screenplay is bad....people typically rip on the producers/directors for letting that get before cameras. Who the screenwriter is doesn't matter at that point. How did they let that script get shot? How did they not try to clean it up in post? Why did they cut what they cut? Etc.

That is all I am saying. If the screenwriter of this movie was a dude, and it played just as terribly, no one would be tweeting about this dude.

---

Wait, you guys aren't assuming that nepotism runs wild in Hollywood?

Ok, so moving forward for you, anytime a woman is involved in a creative project its DEI? Just wanting to make sure I read that right.

veryfuller said:

---

Ok, so moving forward for you, anytime a woman is involved in a creative project its DEI? Just wanting to make sure I read that right.

---

Then yes... you read that wrong. Try again, but put on your thinking cap, squeeze your eyes really hard, and actually read the words I used.

When I type words to make a point or argument, I choose my words carefully. Where did I say: "anytime a woman is involved in a creative project, it's DEI"

I'll sit back and let you find the logical fallacy you just made.

You don't seem to be able to remove your grievances from the facts of this specific situation with this movie, which is why I ask. You came in with your broad brush and sweeping generalizations with no input on this specific situation. And now, when I ask for clarity, you have to treat me like I'm dumb, when I am trying to tease out some nuance from your argument.

Clearly you don't want to actually engage on this specific movie, which is fine. I'm not stupid for taking your broad statement and trying to apply it towards the future.

Probably best to just agree to disagree. Also maybe your arguments would be more persuasive if you didn't treat people who disagreed with you as idiots.

veryfuller said:

---

It just seems like you are missing what the genesis of the movie is. She pitched the script and they liked her take, so she wrote it. And they apparently liked her script. At what point was sexism involved here?

The sexism seems to be on the back end here, where, because she is a women, she is being held to some standard that we don't hold the failed male screenwriters of other terrible movies. Do we assume motives about why their screenplays were picked? Neoptism? Maybe they paid off the producers? Maybe they got the gig because they are buddies with the right people?

When a screenplay is bad....people typically rip on the producers/directors for letting that get before cameras. Who the screenwriter is doesn't matter at that point. How did they let that script get shot? How did they not try to clean it up in post? Why did they cut what they cut? Etc.

That is all I am saying. If the screenwriter of this movie was a dude, and it played just as terribly, no one would be tweeting about this dude.

---

Where I'll disagree with you is...

1 - even TC admits that the studio predetermined that they'd choose a script written by a female. So you're wrong. The sexism was clearly inserted on the front end by the studio. The reaction now is merely pointing that out.

2 - your wrong about the criticism being leveled at her only because she's female. Even the established mainstream and typically "progressive" film critics are putting the script at the forefront of their criticism. Its not just Chuds or angry, far right males that are criticizing it. The same criticism would have been leveled at thd script if it was written by a male.


To step back, my criticism about this one issue has always been that she had virtually no previous experience or credits to her name. So why on earth was she given this huge opportunity at this critical junction in Gunn's new DCU? That's when the conversation turns to, "Well, they insisted the script be written by a woman, and she was the first woman to jump up with a screenplay." Well, what a horrible (and at least slightly sexist) way to choose your screenplay!

I literally used the same tone you used with me. If you don't want me to respond in a patronizing way, don't respond to me in a patronizing way. I show respect to those who show respect to me.

What sweeping generalizations did I make? You said there is sexism in the response to the movie. My statement was simply pointing out the skepticism caused by policy-created doubt. You took that and claimed I made a blanket statement that every woman's involvement is not merit based. That is a straw man fallacy. If you cannot understand that your response is a straw man fallacy, and respond to being called out for it as me calling you dumb, then that's on you.

When called out for it, you did not refine your statement or attempt to adjust your argument. You instead moved to assumptions about me and my motivations. What are we agreeing to disagree about?

You either don't have the ability to understand the nuance in my argument or you are purposefully distorting my argument to fit your attack. Which was it?

You brought the damn dog, man?!

There is a long list of acclaimed and/or popular movies that came from first time screenwriters. Long list.

This has been a bizarre thread. I imagine there are many ways I could get mad at a movie, from the screenwriter choice to the personal views of the key grip to ..... on and on. I guess I generally, through my life, have seen movie's judged by what we pay for - what is on the screen. In these modern days, people seem to reach really hard to find ways to blast a movie.

Because everyone on social media is looking for the next gotchya, controversy, or dumb thing someone said to create a story out of it for clicks.

Every little thing is scrutinized by the hyper left/right and it is exhausting. Just watch a ****ing movie or don't.

If it wasn't for this thread, I would have no idea about the "wokeness" of this movie or the actress playing Supergirl. I would have no idea about the gender of the writer. Seriously, when at anytime do normal people ever discuss or even know who wrote the script? Unless it's the director, I would never know or care. That's true for 99% of people who choose to see or not see this movie. I think some of you just go out of your way to try and find things to be upset about. This movie is bombing because of mediocre reviews and its Supergirl. Nobody cares about Supergirl. It's not bombing because of things the actress said. It's not bombing because the it was written by a female.

Her conduct during interviews convinced a lot of girl dads not to bring their girls for a fun dad and daughter movie date, which I'm thankful for. Just because you're oblivious to/don't care about stuff doesn't mean everyone is.

The only dads that know are the ones looking for it, and that number is likely very insignificant.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Her conduct during interviews convinced a lot of girl dads not to bring their girls for a fun dad and daughter movie date, which I'm thankful for. Just because you're oblivious to/don't care about stuff doesn't mean everyone is.

---

Good Lord, could you clutch your pearls any harder?

Here's exactly what she said…

Quote:

---

"When discussing the intense online scrutiny female actors face in major fan spaces, Alcock stated: "It's from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts. Or someone's name and then 'Dad of four, Christian,' which is hilarious to me."

---

In no way was she calling out Christians. She was citing the hypocrisy of *******s online, who, when you click on their bio, often pose/virtue signal as the opposite of how they actually act online. Which is definitely a thing. It doesn't mean she thinks Christians are bad or anything of the sort.

Should she have been more careful with her words? Of course. But it's not at all the transgression you're making it out to be, or something tons of dad's all across the country are up in arms about.

I'm with Complete Idiot, Madmartiggan, and Bruce Almighty all the way.

No one cares about this **** but people like you, who are constantly looking for "woke" nonsense to ***** and moan about on the internet.

Yes, we could all take the simplistic approach of "This movie was good.I liked it. End of post" or "This movie stunk, don't go see it. End of post."

But when a movie is bad, any review just naturally explains why the movie was bad. It's kind of the point of reviews. We all post on this board because we like movies and TV shows more than the average person. So, we automatically dive into details on why we think a movie was good or bad. That's the enjoyment of posting on here.

And you haven't read this thread closely if you think people are blaming the quality of the script solely on the writer's gender. But I'm not gonna dive into it to explain the nuances of the discussion once again because it's been explained ad nauseum.

TCTTS said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

Her conduct during interviews convinced a lot of girl dads not to bring their girls for a fun dad and daughter movie date, which I'm thankful for. Just because you're oblivious to/don't care about stuff doesn't mean everyone is.

---

Good Lord, could you clutch your pearls any harder?

Here's exactly what she said…

Quote:

---

"When discussing the intense online scrutiny female actors face in major fan spaces, Alcock stated: "It's from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts. Or someone's name and then 'Dad of four, Christian,' which is hilarious to me."

---

In no way was she calling out Christians. She was citing the hypocrisy of *******s online, who, when you click on their bio, often pose/virtue signal as the opposite of how they actually act online. Which is definitely a thing. It doesn't mean she thinks Christians are bad or anything of the sort.

Should she have been more careful with her words? Of course. But it's not at all the transgression you're making it out to be, or something tons of dad's all across the country are up in arms about.

I'm with Complete Idiot, Madmartiggan, and Bruce Almighty all the way.

No one cares about this **** but people like you, who are constantly looking for "woke" nonsense to ***** and moan about on the internet.

---

Box office proves you wrong, again. Relax buddy.

Box office doesn't prove that "woke" is what brought this movie down.

Not by a long shot.

All it proves is that people didn't connect with this particular property for any number of reasons, many of which have been named over and over in this thread.

Once again you're desperately trying to shape its shortcomings to justify your worldview.