Why "Supergirl" Failed.

The new film "Supergirl" has not performed well at the box office.  

Pictured: the public's response to "Supergirl".

The on-line punditry on exactly why this is so is nearly limitless.  It's Superhero Fatigue. It's Fear of Female-Leads.  It's James Gunn.  It's the budget being too large.  It's mistaking a secondary character for a primary one.  It was "Creative Differences". It was studio interference.  It was the writing (or the editing or the filming or the action or the lack of action or the muddiness of the action).  It was too feminist. It wasn't feminist enough.  It used feminism as a ploy.  Literally the only aspect I have NOT heard blamed for the film's failure was Alcock (the actor playing Supergirl), who seems to have acquitted herself well.

I don't want to dismiss any of these possible factors; but, in fact, I don't want to talk about them at all. Instead I want to point out the one problem that seems obvious to me. The one that let me know from the very beginning of the project that it would fail.  And that the reason it was obvious to me wasn't some special insight on my part.  I just happened to be... a comic book reader.  And that reason is:

it's based on Tom King's Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow. 

I have seen this miniseries described in the comic book press as a "fan favorite", and the only time the comic book press uses that description is for something that is exactly NOT a "fan favorite", but rather "something only diehard fans even know about". In it, Tom King has Kara (Supergirl) drunk at her bar at a birthday, which is already, you know, merely a modern "counter-intuitively edgy" interpretation of the characters that fits poorly.  Then she goes on a Hero's Journey, blah blah blah, but the damage to the character is already done.

This approach is at the heart of Gunn's version of Supergirl (even though no one likes Edgy Supergirl, no matter how many times writers time to go that route as a cheap way of distinguishing her from her famous cousin).  No one liked her that in the Superman film and, unsurprisingly, no one wanted to see a whole film based on that.  

And trust me; as I have made clear before, I am not someone who believes that Supergirl needs to boundlessly optimistic. 

That fact alone was going to doom the film, regardless of any other factors.  I knew this; so did most Super-fans.  

Or even anyone who watched more than one episode of the Supergirl show.

How come this is the one decision that was never questioned (or is credited for the film's failure)?

The Best Part of "Superman" (2025)

 ...is the mural in the Hall of Justice:

COMPUTER: ZOOM AND ENHANCE.

Much better.

Non-smooth Move

Ugh.

My confidence in James Gunn's ability to handle properly the DCU on the big screen has always been low. It certainly doesn't help that near every word or image I hear from him seems to lower it further. 

But

Get a haircut, yippy.

making Krypton shaggy instead of smooth-coated (because his OWN doggy is shaggy) is the worst sign yet that Gunn cares more about "James Gunn's DCU" than he does about "THE DCU".

Krypto is a VERY simple character. 

His DESIGN is simple, I mean.

He has a longish 'hound-like' muzzle and flap ears, a smooth white coat and, when possible, a Superman cape. His personality is "I'm a dog", so pretty much the only way you can screw it up is by "drawing' him wrong, which Gunn has , Yes, it's a bold move to put Krypto on the big screen. But if you going to gratuitously screw up the depiction of one of comics' simplest characters, then I don't trust you with more complex ones.  This is one Shaggy Dog Story where I don't think the punchline will be worth it.

Maybe the plot of the film is from "The Super-Dog That Replaced Krypto".
But I doubt it.

Joker: Folie a Deux, The Odyssey, the Brave Little Toaster, and Drag

Sit down for some shocking news you may not be ready to handle:

The sequel to Todd Phillip's Joker film, Joker: Folie a Deux, is not doing well at the box office.

Sorry if I was the one to break it to you.  But, if THAT bit of news actually did shock you, then there's certainly nothing I could have done to prepare you for it mentally. It's not just "not doing well", it's doing worse than Sony's Morbius did.

So perhaps Jared Leto isn't the problem, after all.
Merely "a" problem.

Many have identified the fact that the "Arthur Fleck" character of the original movie is in the sequel revealed to be obviously a shell, just an empty figurehead for a bunch of gratuitously aggrieved numbskulls. You know, just like in real life.

To me, the problem with JFAD isn't that it's a semi-musical or that it seeks to undo the misinterpretation of its predecessor.

Because you know what else was a semi-musical sequel that sought to undo the misinterpretation of its predecessor?  Homer's Odyssey.  But audiences ate that **** up.

Homer, it is deduced, was displeased that dullards in his audience took The Iliad as praise of the Greek Heroic Ideal, rather than as the condemnation it was intended to be.  Thus, its "sequel", the Odyssey, took to deconstructing that "ideal" more explicitly and aggressively.

And it takes some effort to do anything more aggressively than The Iliad.

It's clear that the creators of JFAD were making a Homerically heroic attempt to undo the misinterpretation of the first film as an endorsement of destructive nihilism by an aggrieved audience of dullards.  It's only natural that it would thus alienate fans of the first film and attract exactly no one else, since sensible folk don't really need to hear that message.

Similarly, The Brave Little Toaster would not be a beloved classic if its message had simply been "don't stick your finger in a toaster", because that's not a message sufficient to sustain a feature-length film.

But as a comics fan, I see the real problem of Joker and JFAD much more broadly. To me the problem is "Villain Drag".

No offense intended, guys.

The problem, in short, is when DC (or any IP-owner), allows an independent creative entity (a person or another company) to a tell story about a character that wouldn't otherwise get funding by draping it in the disguise of a well-known character they own.  This character is often a villain, because the company is less invested in the "purity" of the portrayal of such characters.

There's three easy examples right there of characters who have been put in villain drag to capitalize on the Q rating those villains have built up over 80 years.  It's not a sure-fire formula for failure; "The Penguin" seems well received so far. But nothing could symbolize the fact that it's just Villain Drag better than the show runners changing the character's name to "Oz Cobb", rather than Oswald Chesterfield Cobblepot.

The Penguin's name is SUPPOSED to be stupid. That's part of the point of his effete but fatal "gentlemen burglar" routine.

Adaptation is one thing, and variants are necessary and helpful mechanism for building a truly mythical character long-term. That's just how ancient myths were developed, too.  

I mean, this guy killed a hobo for a sandwich, fell in love with the Riddler, and was nearly emaciated. But he was still definitely The Penguin.

But there is a palpable difference between wanting to do a new take on a well-known comic book-based character and simply creating a character you want to tell stories about and then covering them with a coat of paint to make them LOOK like the comic book character.

As I mentioned, this phenomenon is not confined to villains, but the less the company has invested in the purity of the character's portrayal, the more likely a target the character becomes.

Sometimes this can be happening without anyone really noticing it.

"Batman versus Superman" is a good example of Anti-Hero Drag.  The essential thing wrong with that movie is that well-known characters chosen specifically because they are well-known characters are acting completely out of character.

You really can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want to tell a story about BananaMan, then, damn it, you have to be prepared to tell a story about a man who throws Bananarangs, has a pet monkey, and adopted a kid sidekick named Second Banana. These characters aren't just COSTUMES; they come with stories and personalities BUILT INTO THEM; it's why everyone knows who they are already. It's the source of the popularity that opportunistically parasitic outside creators are hoping to leach.

Putting on a little grease-paint and faking a smile doesn't make someone the Joker.

So don't be surprised when "comic book adaptations" that think it does wind up failing hard.

Seven Things About The Map of Metropolis

I do so love maps.  What can we learn from the map of Metropolis, newly visible in set pics from the forthcoming Superman film?

1. Metropolis is in Delaware, as indicated by the Delaware Bay.

Locating Metropolis in Delaware is pretty traditional and has always made sense.  Metropolis is pretty clearly intended as an East Coast city and Delaware is a "gap" among existing large cities which allows you to locate Metropolis there without moving or eliminating any significant places or landmarks.

Although I am sure Jack Lingo would disagree.

Architecture fans like to imagine Chicago as Metropolis because of the presence of Art Deco and elevated trains.  And fans of Smallville, KS, often picture it as being closer to the heartland.  But those aren't as consistent with the history of Metropolis is portrayed in the comic books.

2. "It is a crag! ... a peak! ... a promontory! ... A promontory, did I say? ... It is a peninsula!"  Or, at least, so it appears. One cannot see what's beyond the western edge but it doesn't feel like it tapers off again into an island.

3.  It has many streets. Almost of which have been named after Superman-related comics creators.  In fact, there are TWO Robinson Streets, even though that almost certain would not happen in real life.

4. It has many smaller parks rather than one large one.  This is very consistent with what we have always been shown of Metropolis. There always seems to be a small park in walking distance of, well, anything.  The park that Superman winds up fighting someone above.  

5.  It has no marked neighborhoods. A little odd for a tourist map, where most people will be looking for general neighborhoods rather than every little specific street.  

Pity. I was REALLY hoping to find out just where Little Africa was.

This saddens me, as neighborhoods are the real handles by which we can pick up and drink lore from a huge cup like Metropolis. Metropolis does have neighborhoods that have been defined (or mentioned) in the past, even if not so aggressively as Gotham City.

One of many ways in which Gotham City is more aggressive than Metropolis.

I did see in other material from the film that the neighborhood of New Troy is being used, so there is hope for more neighborhood being mentioned, too.

6.  The city has a more historic "lower end", which gives way to more strictly planned later development.  This is the Manhattan model and, although Metropolis is not Manhattan, it is very logical layout.  The tip of the peninsula would have been developed first by settlers, using a more organic street layout, followed in later decades by more standardized city street planning in the American way.

Which is one of the things Superman protects.

7. It's a shipping/port town, as indicated by all the wharfage.  This might seem so obvious as to not need mentioning. But it is important to note since Metropolis is somewhere along Delaware's coast, better known for beachfront property than shipping.

The Metropolis map has Delaware Bay mapped clearly.  This locates it somewhere NORTH of Rehoboth Beach, since anything south would be labelled "Atlantic Ocean" rather than "Delaware Bay".

Aquaman II

Today I saw Aquaman II.

It's a lot of movie. Or, should I say, a lot of movieS, considering how much of it is set pieces cribbed from other films and property.  Perhaps James Wan was possessed by the ghost of Bob Kane.

Perhaps, like Topo, Wan's main power is mimicry.

The film is visually... overwhelming.  There seems to be even more happening even faster than in the first film and while it is certainly impactful, so is getting hit with a whale

Just ask Namor.

There is no doubt the visuals are beautiful, but honestly I am mostly deducing that, because my brain had insufficient time to PROCESS the images as they were presented and supplanted by the next.

Jason Momoa is, well, Jason Momoa, and always is pretty much playing Jason Momoa not just in this film but in any film, because Americans don't want who actors who play different parts, they want movie stars who play stereotyped versions of themselves.  I don't blame the American film industry for this, but the parasocial obsessions of American movie-goers.

Pictured: range.
Unfortunately, no pictures of his summer stock turn as "Professor" Harold Hill were available.

He also has gotten way too puffy-faced, even though he's not really that old (42).  He does look great -- huge-- in the classic orange scale-mail shirt, but given the lack of any shirtless scenes and his incredibly blousy civilian wear it's clear that he's not in superhero shape and won't be again.  

Say good-bye to that bod, folks. It has sunk beneath the waves of time.

 Before the beard and long-hair were biker-sexy. Now it just says "bear night at the leather bar."

Patrick "Orm" Wilson has extended shirtless scenes in the film. And those scenes say "DILF".
He's five years older than Momoa. 

Speaking of Orm, there are some who are saying that the buddy-comedy part of the film that focuses on the relationship between the half-brothers are the best part of the film.  I am not one of them.  It wasn't completely cringey, but it stank of Thor-Loki.  One's an uptight haughty supervillain; the other's an irreverent bro-dude superhero; together, they fight crime and make wan jibes at each other.

Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (still) isn't very charismatic or even just very good as Black Manta. But he doesn't really have to be, since all Black Manta. has to be is vengeful.

And he's only a threat because some ancient evil Atlantis-adjacent tyrant is using him as a hand-puppet, because doesn't it ALWAYS come back to some ancient evil Atlantis-tyrant at some point? 

I have front-loaded the downsides of the film, as I usually do in a review of anything. But know that I did still enjoy the film.  I mean, it has the Neal Pozner stealth uniform, Art Junior sending little concentric rings of marine telepathy from his forehead, and TOPO RIDING STORM THE SEA-HORSE.  For that kind of fan-service, I can forgive a lot.  

The costume looks awesome. I think live action has helped people realize how cool Aquaman's costume actually is; it just DRAWS poorly.

Watching the first film, I found enough fun and novelty to distract me from the film's flaws, which I felt only upon reflection.  In the second film, however, I was conscious of the film's flaws AS I was watching it; THAT was distracting.  

P.S. My hot-take?

The film shows us that Arthur Junior has Arthur's aquatic telepathy 

and he is the child of Mera, who has aquakinesis.

BEHOLD MY AQUABALLS

There I deduce that the Filmation Aquaman is, in fact, Arthur Curry JUNIOR, not senior.

Speaking of Batman Stuff...

 "The Batman" is...

quite a film.

I certainly enjoyed it and I wholeheartedly approve of it; I don't hesitate to recommend that you see it.  

Unlike Valentine.

Pack a lunch when you do; modern audiences are unaccustomed to actually getting their money's worth in film length, and this one gives you 2:55 hr.  Could it have been tightened some? Of course; there's definitely some loving camera-porn going on (long, joint motorcycle rides through the cemetery, anyone?).  But I didn't feel the movie dragged and I was invested and interested through the end.  

Unlike Valentine.

There is definitely a point where the movie feels OVER.  (Unlike Valentine, which feels endless.) The villain is out of murder targets and has been caught, the underlying mystery that ties them together has been solved, the B Plot for the Second Lead has been resolved. Obviously, it's over. I enjoyed the delightful tension of knowing full well that, no matter how many signals were being sent that it was over, that it WASN'T, because this is the Riddler, and there is always more to the riddles than merely their answers.  Sure enough.  I had noticed Chekov's Gun in the first act, but so much had gone on to distract me from it that I only JUST remembered it before... it went off in the third.

And that third act is key. The movie is... grim. There is not a single moment of levity in it (a feature it SHARES with Valentine) even though there are plenty of opportunities to acknowledge that, yes, it IS a little ridiculous to have Robert Pattinson in a batsuit show up at a dance club. "No, thanks, I'll sit at the bar; I shouldn't wish to attract attention."  

And you know what? I didn't miss it at all. You want funny Batman?  I would link to the current trailer for the animated Super-Pets movie with Bat-Hound interacting with Batman but, of course, it's not actually funny. Point is, sure, Batman can be funny; it's easy to make the case that NO hero has greater funny-potential than Batman. But Batman doesn't NEED to be funny. 

Batman's not a Marvel character.  DC movies shouldn't be required to chuckle at the character's intrinsic goofiness out of self-defense, like a nerd going "HEY, if make fun of MYSELF enough then the BULLIES won't have any ammunition and people will think I'm COOL!" You can watch Marvel movies for that. The Batman is unapologetically grim.  It's a film noir / detective / political thriller / serial killer / mystery / police procedural / action film.  No, it's not funny; go watch Dog Police.

Unlike Valentine. Don't watch that.

It's the third act that redeems that darkness and I think a lot of people are missing that. It redeems Catwoman and The Batman, and creates the potential for redeeming the Wayne legacy and Gotham City.  The way has been cleared for a new Gotham which will definitely be better in many ways.  And worse in others.  There will be less systemic crime but there will be more Riddlers.  The Gotham of Thomas Wayne becomes the Gotham of Bruce Wayne.  One where the contrast between good and evil is more stark.  With all its talk of surviving our scars and an almost painful clarity, it seems to set the stage for the entrance of a truly meaningful Harvey Dent, which is why the final scene in Arkham was... not what I was looking for.

Much like in Valentine.

The plot is a political mystery; for the first time ever, I felt as though I were watching an issue of Detective Comics on screen and that felt great.  Particular since I was pretty much able to keep up with the Riddler's clues and the underlying mystery, thanks I'm sure to my in-depth studies of the techniques of Ace Investigator Speed Saunders, the REAL detective in Detective Comics whom that guy in the black cape supplanted.  The plot also features a Gotham that is corrupt but not grotesque, a unique origin and motivation for the Riddler, an unusual backstory for the Waynes, a pre-established partnership between Gordon and Batman that is one of the film's most satisfying aspects, and a Bruce Wayne who has truly opted out of his role in society.  

Pattinson is really good in his role; you may not LIKE his role, but there's little arguing how well he plays it.  Never have I seen a Batman who really scared me before; never have I see a Bruce Wayne who  seemed more vulnerable.  Batman was an imposing monster; Bruce Wayne looked like he barely held up his own clothes.  In that film, no one in their right mind would imagine that Bruce Wayne could be Batman.  He also undergoes the best character arc any film Batman has ever gone.

I didn't like Dano that much as an actor, but I respect what he and the film were doing with the Riddler. It was certainly a fresh take (as you'll see), but it hit many of the required notes.  The Riddler is brilliant.  The Riddler's clues are sometimes about the questions as much as the answers.  The Riddler isn't physically threatening, but he can still kill you.  The Riddler still has a corny sense of humor. You don't really defeat the Riddler by being smarter than he is, because no one is; you defeat him by being a better person than he is.  And the Riddler is just... really, weird, man.  Weird guy.

Like that guy in Valentine.

Batman and the Riddler are a great counterpoint.  Bruce Wayne and Batman both are always hiding in the shadows are yet are ALWAYS recognized, even though they never introduce themselves. In fact, I would have to watch the movie again to be sure: I'm not certain "the Batman" is even SAID in the film, as impossible as that sounds.  The Riddler, on the other hand, is always (as is traditional) trying to draw attention to himself and yet... remains an unrecognized unknown.

Zoe Kravitz played Catwoman. She was fine. Andy Serkis played Alfred. He was not.  As I said of Michael Caine, Alfred should not sound like Halfred P. Dooli''le. Those people are gardeners, if they're lucky. Some of Halfred's plot-moments are a bit heavy-handed, like the cufflink scene.  But like myths, comics books are generally not designed to be subtle they are just designed to be impactful.  If you go into a boxing ring, expect to hit over the head a couple times, you know?

Just like in Valentine

What else is in the film? 

Schubert. Way too much Schubert. In fact, when Bernard, I mean, Gordon asks, "What's that?" I half-expected Batman to go "It's Schubert's Ave Maria, man, have you been unconscious for half the film?!" Also in FX, Batman's clompy boots and monster walk, which was really hot actually.  And scary monster movie soundtrack.

Gotham City! Which looked not really like New York and not like a CARTOON or ART PROJECT about Gotham but just like Gotham. 

Gil Perez-Abraham's mustache! Holy crow, how did that thing not get billing on the poster?  It did more to make real the world of the GCPD than the entire Gotham tv series. It had BETTER be in the sequel, and I expect Officer Martinez to get up the courage to ask out Bruce Wayne.

Colin Farrell.  Somewhere.  Under all that.  I get it, it's the Penguin from that Batman game and I understand multiple mythic interpretations but... how far away from the traditional version of a character do you have to get before it becomes just Not That Character?

Gadgets! Bat-contacts were ULTRA-cool; those are instant classics, not one-offs.  Chest-batarang makes so much sense I almost laughed when I saw it. And the Batmobile; the Batmobile SCARED ME A LOT.  Which made me happy.

Unlike Valentine, which did neither.

Pete Savage. I actually had to cover my mouth to keep from laughing out loud since I knew no one else in the theater would get the joke. If only they'd given him a French accent. 

Lots of cutesy customized greetings cards that are clues to murder.  Hm. Seems like I saw that in some other movie, but just can't remember where...