Supergirl Movie coming?!?

Cavil was perfect to play Superman.   I agree more DCs loss than his.

i think you recast as needed.   I liked the actors in JL, you just need to write the movie right.

I think Gal isn’t going to be changed until after WW2, and if it does well she will stay.

honestly I see more need to have better story and character choices than replace everyone.  If you need to do that to get to the goal, do it.   But have a plan first.

DC put the cart before the horse trying to do JL before the individual films.   Marvel built to the Avengers.  I’d tell DC to do the same.  Make a good Shazam.  Make a good WW2.  Make a good Supergirl. Make a Gotham Sirens or Birds of Prey flick. (It’s too late to change Aquaman)


Then assess.

TwiceOnThursdays wrote: Cavil was perfect to play Superman.   I agree more DCs loss than his.

i think you recast as needed.   I liked the actors in JL, you just need to write the movie right.

I think Gal isn’t going to be changed until after WW2, and if it does well she will stay.

honestly I see more need to have better story and character choices than replace everyone.  If you need to do that to get to the goal, do it.   But have a plan first.

DC put the cart before the horse trying to do JL before the individual films.   Marvel built to the Avengers.  I’d tell DC to do the same.  Make a good Shazam.  Make a good WW2.  Make a good Supergirl. Make a Gotham Sirens or Birds of Prey flick. (It’s too late to change Aquaman)


Then assess.

I agree that Cavil was the perfect Superman. His problem was lousy scripts. Perhaps he now wants to improve his chops as an actor by working on movies with good scripts. You don't get to be at the top of the pyramid of actors by accepting poor scripts. Also, the Superman role can define an actor (and limit them) if they become too strongly identified with it. That hurt Reeves, and on a related theme, Connery had a hard time escaping his identification with the Bond role because he did too many movies and became defined by the role. 

Despite my early misgivings about Gal, she's now the iconic WW in my eyes. But that's not a terribly high bar given I'm one of the odd people here who did not like Lynda Carter in the TV role. I had given up on this franchise until Gal took it on with Patty directing. Now I'm a fan again. But then, I'm in love with the way Gal laughs. <grin>



But as long as all this churning increases the chances of a Supergirl movie, then it's all water under the bridge in my mind. That would be a great payoff. Naturally, with the right actress and right script. 

But then, I'm very fond of Kryptonian characters. That's never going to change, good movies or bad. 

Shadar

if there anything of DCEU you actually like?

Good question.  If I'm honest, as a DC fan, no there is pretty much nothing I like in the DCEU.  The tone is all wrong, the characters are wrong, and the stories are terrible.

DC comics has a history of iconic stories.  Should have used them, like Marvel did - i.e. Infinity Gauntlet; Civil War.

As films, there is even less to like if I am honest.  When you break down any DCEU film, plot, character, pace, are all over the place.  And this isn't me saying it, others have commented on them to.  They are bad films.

The shining example people use is Wonder Woman, and to be fair, it was the best of them on every level.  BUT it was almost LITERALLY Captain America: The First Avenger.  Sure, there were some slight tweeks, but overall it was the same.  So they had a solid template to work from.

It was also certainly helped immensely by Chris Pine doing a lot of the heavy-lifting (despite being the supporting character). And played as a "fish out of water" style story, it played to Gal's strengths as an actress.  But the problem going forward is, can you keep making that film?  The answer is no. The novelty wears off after the first iteration.  As an example, JL should have made more then it did simply due to the "fans" that made WW big bucks.  Where were they to see their "star" in her new movie?  To compare, the Captain America films all made progressively more money.  Because people (those who had even never read Captain America comics) bought into his character and story.  Not his hype.

If you feel or think its just prejudice of some kind that I have, I hope I have, at least partially, dispelled that by outlining not only what I like, nothing, but also why I don't like it

Peace.

/K

Came across this on DigitalSpy:

Regarding Kara's origin in the upcoming Supergirl movie. In the original comic, she came from Argo City (and asteroid city) and she left much later than Superman left Krypton:

---

"However, this was adjusted when the character was reintroduced to the DC Universe in 2004 with The Supergirl from Krypton. In this version, she left Krypton at the same time as an infant Superman, only to be put into suspended animation when her rocket hit an asteroid and she arrived on Earth 30 years later.

The possibility for the new Supergirl movie is that it shortens the suspended animation part and the Supergirl we meet is still older than Superman. This opens the chance for Warner Bros to cast a younger actor as Superman, even if this version couldn't then crossover with the likes of  Aquaman  and  Wonder Woman ."

---

If this comes to pass, then the choice of actresses for SG also expands.  Anyway, interesting speculation.

Maybe an early twentyish SG (much like MB in the TV show) with a teenage Superman. That could work. 

I guess it depends on how well DC wants to integrate all their characters. If they want them to all stay integrated, then that leads to problems given that all their storytelling in all their movie franchises have to stay in sync. That would add a lot of overhead, keeping everything synchronized.

The storytelling could be more flexible and innovative if the movies can operate more freely. But then you lose one of the things that has made Marvel movies fun (team-ups). But then, WW is essentially immortal, and maybe Aguaman is too, and Kryptonian aging can be portrayed several ways.

Shadar

If you are going to have a Super- GIRL older than your Super-MAN that is going to raise some hackles.

I think we are straying off the Supergirl tv show theme here with this line of conversation.

Markiehoe wrote: If you are going to have a Super- GIRL older than your Super-MAN that is going to raise some hackles.

I think we are straying off the Supergirl tv show theme here with this line of conversation.

My bad. I should have posted this on the movie thread.

Perhaps a moderator can move it where it belongs?

shadar

And new info of in which time movie will happens...

www.themarysue.com/supergirl-1970s/

Albais wrote: And new info of in which time movie will happens...

www.themarysue.com/supergirl-1970s/

Do not agree with the article talking about period pieces - as they apply to Supergirl.  I like the Mary Sue but the last part of the article is all reasons that have nothing to do with Supergirl.

The points are either totally non-applicable -- Supergirl is standalone here by design so we won't see younger versions of existing characters, and what they mention doesn't quite work for a first movie.  (Wonder Woman didn't do any of this either).

All the points about Wonder Woman were valid for Wonder Woman, but don't apply to Supergirl, someone who grew up in a technologically advanced society.  Seeing tech from 2018 Earth is probably quaint to her.  Krypton had been watching Earth too, she probably has some acclimation (knowing English, etc).

The first stated reasons:

- differentiate the DCEU Supergirl from the Arrowverse’s Kara Danvers.
- frees Supergirl from any Justice League plot points or expectations to include DC’s film heroes

Also have nothing to do with the movie.  Supergirl does need to differentiate itself from the TV Show of the same name, but if the main device you use to do that is a simple cheat (new time period), then the writer, director, and actors aren't focusing on the right things.   It needs to really answer that question to make a good movie, not try to gloss over it.

As for the second point, that trick never works.  And it's pointless to try.  Just write the damn movie and focus on making it good.  Then tell the rabid people to STFU.  I actually like "new Star Trek" and love Leonard Nimoy, but every minute he was on the screen in New Star Trek was a waste of story-time, and kept the movie from actually focusing on what it should be doing.   OTH it was weaponized nostalgia, which is what they were going for.  it just doesn't work long haul, and why new Trek didn't have an OK movie until #3, where it started to try to actually figure out what it was. (And why it's stalled now.)  DC can't spend another 2-3 movies just pissing around.  And if they want something to last, they need to focus on the character in each movie.  That's what stand alone movies are for.

The article also lists the other Super hero movies that did this, making it seem like the choice was "we'll copy what other cool kids are doing".  Though I know that is a conceit of the writer of the story rather than the studio.  Or something even WORSE.  "We had one success, a movie about a woman super-hero set in the past." So they're aping the superficial stuff of Wonder Woman to design Supergirl. (If this is the case, I'm sorry to say Supergirl will suck unless we get REALLY lucky.)

- Wonder Woman was set in the past for the reasons outlined in the article (which have no bearing on Supergirl).
- X-Men First Class (etc) was set in the past to be a reset on a turgid franchise, and to do that part that it said (it was fun seeing the characters as younger people, and seeing how they became the characters in the later films).  Doesn't work if we're meeting Supergirl for the first time.
- Captain Marvel is set in the past because Marvel needed to solve a problem: How does Carol emerge as a skilled powerhouse if she's new?  Marvel also wanted to have Super-heroic history happening "in secret" from WW II to Iron Man I.  They can only do that by backfilling (as was done in the history of Ant-Man).  This is probably the biggest cheat of the reasons above ... but it also works in context of what marvel was building and how they puzzled their movies together.  It works precisely because there are a lot of Marvel movies and they've been thinking about these things and the timeline.  DC hasn't got either ( a lot of movies) or a lot of thought about the timeline.

Supergirl seems to be set in the past because .... ?   I think the answer to this is "because DC doesn't want to give up on the DC Cinematic Universe", so telling this story in the past gives them an ability to make a movie and not contradict any current "history" and then piece it into the movie.  Well, as long as you answer the question "Where was Supergirl during Man of Steel?"  She can't be a hero and sit out an invasion of Earth (even by her own people).

So at the end of the movie Supergirl gets trapped (in stasis/phantom zone, etc) and then they can decant her into a modern movie as needed.  Or she leaves Earth, and wanders the galaxy coming back to Earth maybe because she received some signal from Zod's arrival.  I think i've heard this used in another movie about a female super hero in the past ..... oh, yeah, it's the end plot of Captain Marvel.

But they're writing a movie, and hamstringing plot points -- you CAN'T have Supergirl be part of this tapestry, in the past, and NOT have an answer for the question.    So the correct answer is "you have to deal with it anyway, so DEAL WITH IT".  Shit or get off the pot.

I would write the movie and have the main world noticeable events take place in a short timespan where you don't have to ask "where is the Justice League and Superman?"  And then focus on WHO this Kara is, and why this movie exists and what it explores the TV Show doesn't.  Then you sidestep the entire DC Timeline, while others try to figure out what to do to salvage the mess.

You do similar things with the Batgirl and Harley Quinn movies -- narrow the scale so they do not need to intersect with the other DC properties (i.e. no Suicide Squad world threat ending).  This lets DC focus on what they should be doing:

- properly defining their characters and giving the actors time to breathe into the roles
- writing a good movie

And DO NOT have Batman or Superman show up in either movie!  DC's problem is relying too much on the quick hit of their two best characters to carry them through.  Suicide Squad should never have had Joker or Batman in it, because that forces the movie to figure out what it should be.   Also, maybe figure out what the movie should be BEFORE you start filming.  (That's the real lesson of Suicide Squad and JL.)

This news doesn't make me pessimistic about Supergirl, it's just window dressing on the story. OTH, I don't see any good news in it either.

Albais wrote: And new info of in which time movie will happens...

www.themarysue.com/supergirl-1970s/

I would enjoy the SG movie set in the 70's for personal reasons (I was 22 in 1970, so lots of good memories of the 70's). Good SG costumes back then as well. 

But this is DC. Unless I'm missing something, where was Wonder Woman during WWII and the Cold War?  On vacation?  Moved back to Themosyra?  Or is the 1984 movie going to have flashbacks to the 40's or whatever. How do they explain the holes?

SG would have same problem, especially with being absent during MOS, but as Twice has suggested, there are workarounds. Like her not being on Earth. Or maybe her story doesn't take place on our Earth. Total freedom on that one, but not sure how well that would work with a general audience.

Totally agree with Twice that this article doesn't build confidence in the movie being good, but it does add support to the hope that they are seriously thinking about making the movie. That's very good.

Shadar

I realize that these issues are complex, but my take is that WB is making the mistake of simply trying to put out content that makes money using existing formulas

Maybe Iron Man was just the same thing and lucky but they made a good decision to have an overall plan, made good hires and have had mostly decent writing.  Even the movies where the writing is weak, many times the humor is there to take up the slack.

DC had one hit and now they want to replicate it.  It can certainly be done and I wish them the best but, unlike Marvel (and maybe to DC's advantage) my expectations are going to remain low until they can prove otherwise.  As long as they are throwing money at our favorite type of content I can remain hopeful that they'll get something right eventually.

Hey, look at the bright side. Even if the SG movie is poorly written and has many problems, it's STILL a big-budget Supergirl movie and some good scenes and some great imagery is almost certain to come out of it. 

So worst case, that's WAY BETTER than no movie. 

And until it is made and shows, we can entertain ourselves thinking up ways it could be done well, and sifting the tea leaves of internet gossip to judge how well we think the studio is actually doing it. That's all good.

The only bad path is the one that ends with them not making the movie. But that's no fun to talk about. So let's be optimistic and hope for the best. 

Shadar

shadar wrote: Hey, look at the bright side. Even if the SG movie is poorly written and has many problems, it's STILL a big-budget Supergirl movie and some good scenes and some great imagery is almost certain to come out of it. 

So worst case, that's WAY BETTER than no movie. 

And until it is made and shows, we can entertain ourselves thinking up ways it could be done well, and sifting the tea leaves of internet gossip to judge how well we think the studio is actually doing it. That's all good.

The only bad path is the one that ends with them not making the movie. But that's no fun to talk about. So let's be optimistic and hope for the best. 

Shadar

This is all true, and a way to stay positive.

I take what wev'e got so far as neutral, don't know enough to know anything.

But it's fun to speculate.   And to think of casting,etc as the variables align.

I really hope that someone who really wants to see a sexy woman do lots of super-femme feats gets a good position in the movie.  (Lifting heavy things, bending metal, intimidating large men with her strength even though she's much smaller, etc).

Heck, even though it's not my thing, a good super-breath scene would be aces too (as I know it IS some other people's thing).

They'd have the budget to do it right.

Woodclaw wrote:

shadar wrote:

Albais wrote: And new info of in which time movie will happens...

www.themarysue.com/supergirl-1970s/

I would enjoy the SG movie set in the 70's for personal reasons (I was 22 in 1970, so lots of good memories of the 70's). Good SG costumes back then as well. 

But this is DC. Unless I'm missing something, where was Wonder Woman during WWII and the Cold War?  On vacation?  Moved back to Themosyra?  Or is the 1984 movie going to have flashbacks to the 40's or whatever. How do they explain the holes?

SG would have same problem, especially with being absent during MOS, but as Twice has suggested, there are workarounds. Like her not being on Earth. Or maybe her story doesn't take place on our Earth. Total freedom on that one, but not sure how well that would work with a general audience.

Totally agree with Twice that this article doesn't build confidence in the movie being good, but it does add support to the hope that they are seriously thinking about making the movie. That's very good.

Shadar

According to Justice League, the idea is that from 1917 to 2017 Diana was hiding in some hole mourning over the death of Steve Trevor, which is one of the many reasons why I think the DCEU really need to stop and start from scratch.

That's the best they can do?  Pretty sad. She's not a quitter and she's not going to sit around for a hundred years moping while the world burns around her during another world war. 

All they had to do was to say that she went back to Themosyra to isolate herself from the world of men -- just as has always been the case with Amazons. She wouldn't even know what was happening in our world and time probably operates differently there anyway. 

The only device they need is another reason for her to come to the world of men. Something she couldn't ignore. 

Her hiding in a museum is very weak and unnecessary given the character, all for a bit of a Batman connection that isn't required. 

Hopefully, they will do better in explaining where SG went from the 70's until whenever it is they surface her again. She can be traveling the universe helping other worlds, diving wormholes and otherwise mucking about with time until she reappears on Earth. Easy. 

Unlike Superman, this isn't really her home. But she has a soft spot for humans.

Shadar

Based on WB track record, and while I will try to remain optimistic, I will simply leave these words of wisdom by a late, great Jedi Master:

“ This is not going to go the way you think.” – Luke Skywalker."

Peace.

/K

And one more for today about villain, but a rumor anyway...

screenrant.com/supergirl-movie-brainiac-villain/

five_red wrote:

Albais wrote: And new info of in which time movie will happens...

www.themarysue.com/supergirl-1970s/

Personally a period piece would be fine by me, although the ideal time to set it in might be the 1960s, as that's when young people really start to get a voice in Western culture, in the arts, in politics, in fashion, etc. If they take Kara back to her roots as a college student (drama or psychology -- she studied both as Linda Danvers), then a 1960s campus is a fascinating place to be. Heck, unlike the 70s Superman movies she'll not only be able to acknowledge the existence of mind altering substances, but inhale too..!! The era is full of great potential source material. You have the rise of second wave Feminism (for many, much more coherent than the modern third wave), and a military who are still into MK-ULTRA and paranoid about Soviet spies. The Kennedy assassination, Vietnam, Tricky Dicky, Apollo and the space race, Marvel Comics... Oh, okay, maybe not the last one.

A period setting also reduces the odds that they'll feel the need to drag Superman into the story, which is a blessing in my books. The less he is mentioned in any movie, the better.


R5

A lot of what blossomed in the 60's made it into the 70's. The media went crazy (no surprise) with the Flower Children of Haight-Asberry in San Francisco, love-ins and all, but that was just a single summer. The forces surrounding that began earlier and lasted longer. 

Things gradually wore down as people became disenchanted and the dream of dreams died. But it wasn't a sudden thing. Rather the Zeitgeist was fading as opposed to growing by 72 or 73. People were realizing that the world wasn't going to change into a place of peace and happiness, but some people held onto the dream for a while.

Hippies were wandering out of SF and other places to live in the countryside, which led to the home industries of Humbolt and Mendocino counties of CA. If you visited those areas in the 70's, you would still see the 60's very much alive. 

Only now are the grandchildren of those hippies turning the local industry (growing weed) into a legal, above-board business, with lots of work yet to be done. 

My advice... don't draw a hard line between 60's and 70's, but rather a bleeding edge that lasted until the 80's finally killed it dead. If the writers of the SG movie want to explore some 60's themes in a 70's movie, they will still fit. Movies like Easy Rider, often regarded as a classic 60's counter-culture movie, didn't come out until almost 1970, and opened the door to the so-called  New Hollywood exploration of the counter-culture during the 70's. (Hollywood is always late to the table.)  So while the counter-culture was fading, it was being celebrated on the screen in the 70's. So public awareness of such themes was very high and could easily be incorporated in a period piece.

Shadar (whose only expertise in this area is living through it when I was young. I got my awakening in Chicago with the Yuppies for the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Some of you will understand what that means.)

five_red wrote:

shadar wrote: My advice... don't draw a hard line between 60's and 70's, but rather a bleeding edge that lasted until the 80's finally killed it dead. If the writers of the SG movie want to explore some 60's themes in a 70's movie, they will still fit.

Although the most logical place to explore 60s themes is the 60s.

Of course culture doesn't change in an instant, and many elements of the 60s were still around in the 70s, just as many elements of the 40s and 50s were around in the 60s, but the Supergirl movie isn't going to be a historically accurate docu-drama that attempts to redefine the way the audience engages with periods of modern history. The non-contemporary setting is a bit of fun, adding flavour to the visuals while (hopefully) providing opportunities for interesting plotting. It's a pastiche, a summation, a rose-tinted view, and as such it will play towards stereotypes and audience expectations.

Generally the 60s is seen as a psychedelic decade of innovation and optimism, the 70s is seen as a beige decade of stagnation and realism, and the 80s is seen as a neon-lit decade of excess and greed. None of these descriptions is true, but for the purposes of a fantasy movie like Supergirl the truth is somewhat academic. Any historic setting is going to play with the stereotype, not the reality, so which stereotype will work best as a backdrop for our favourite superheroine -- psychedelia, beige or neon..?

R5

Agree with all of that, Red. You've nailed the default stereotypes, but they are just that. Stereotypes.  Among my compatriots, we sum up the 70's with one word: Nixon. The death of optimism. 

But my point (and yours) is that they don't have to stick to one 70's stereotype. Psychedelia was still alive, helped in part by my favorite band, Pink Floyd, who did some slightly interesting stuff in the 70's that was rooted in the 60's. Now if they could fit a bit of Echoes into the soundtrack, or more popularly, anything from Dark Side, I'd be in heaven.  

Shadar