Skip to content

Supergirl Should Be Ashamed of Itself

9
Share

Supergirl Should Be Ashamed of Itself - Reactor

Home / Supergirl Should Be Ashamed of Itself
Movies & TV Supergirl

Supergirl Should Be Ashamed of Itself

If the DCU wanted to assure us that it had the right stuff… this wasn’t the way to do it.

By

Published on June 26, 2026

Image: DC Studios

9
Share
Milly Alcock in Supergirl

Image: DC Studios

On paper, Supergirl should have been an easy sell. It is the second film in the fledgling DCU film reboot, arriving on the heels of 2025’s Superman, which was largely praised by audiences and critics alike. Milly Alcock was introduced to audiences there via a cameo at the center of the film, Clark’s hard-drinking little cousin—she goes to red sun planets so she can get wasted—who is responsible for Krypto’s complete lack of canine training. Her namesake film was based on an excellent and recent run of comics by Tom King and Bilquis Evely (Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow), which provided everything the story needed to be an all-out win with audiences.

The trouble is, Hollywood doesn’t do so well with female-led superhero films. It took well over a decade for the MCU to even consider a Black Widow movie, despite the fact that she was the only woman in the OG Avengers lineup. Captain Marvel also took ages to burst onto the scene, and while her first film was decent fare, the studio put absolutely no effort into promoting its sequel. 2017’s Wonder Woman seemed poised to undo damage in this area, until its sequel went for a very awkward Big-style plot arc that left audiences baffled. (It also wasted Cheetah, which is frankly unforgivable.) Cathy Yan’s Birds of Prey was a delight, but reportedly failed to break even at the box office, leaving droves of fans bereft that they might never see its like again. Black Panther Wakanda Forever focused entirely on its female cast—but that was only due to the death of its eponymous leading man, leading to an understandable but ungainly runtime and no small measure of confusion over the film’s focus.

All of which is to say, Supergirl had big boots to fill in more than one direction. But even taking that tall order into account doesn’t make up for what was done.

The premise of the film is simple enough: a 13-year-old alien girl named Ruthye Marye Knoll (Eve Ridley) means to get revenge on Krem of the Yellow Hills (Matthias Schoenaerts) for killing her entire family when the brigand and his crew came to steal the life’s work of Ruthye’s father, a master swordmaker. Ruthye asks the locals for help in achieving this end, promising her father’s best sword to anyone who will aid her once she’s done. Kara Zor-El is partying on Ruthye’s homeworld for her 21st birthday, and categorically refuses to help the girl until Krem decides to steal Kara’s ship and shoots Krypto full of poison in the process. A local healer tells her that Krypto only has three days to live, and only Krem carries the antidote on his person (… uh-huh), so Kara means to hunt the guy down, but tells Ruthye to stay put while she does so. Thankfully, the kid is more interesting than anyone else in the movie, so she doesn’t listen.

It is important to know (comics spoiler ahead, apologies): Krypto’s impending death is a ruse in the comics run. It’s real here because blockbuster movies love a cheap ticking clock, and DCU maven James Gunn seemingly loves to write, direct and/or produce movies/television where we use animal torture as a relevant plot point. And I wish I could tell you that this is the only cheap move this film pulls, but it is the first in a lengthy grocery list of offenses.

While the script is penned by Ana Nogueira (known primarily for acting work, whose previous writing career is mostly plays and short films), it’s got Gunn’s preferences dripping from every digital pore. The worldbuilding is treated almost verbatim to Guardians of the Galaxy on the interplanetary front—everything is pretty much exactly the same as our world, but even dirtier. Rest stops contain the same blue slushies you can get at your local 7-Eleven. At a dive bar on the next world Kara and Ruthye travel to, the alien singer croons “Girl From Ipanema” for no discernible reason whatsoever. Language itself is deeply irritating in the film, as we’re led to believe that there’s some sort of galactic common tongue, but given no indication of how it’s learned or why people know it, particularly when they live on backwater planets that don’t get many visitors; the point is that people can always speak this common tongue as much or as little as needed for the plot to move or complicate.

We get a public bus trip that results in Supergirl getting a power up by a yellow sun, and a terrible action sequence on the crowded vehicle where we finally learn that the brigands—and yes, they’re simply called “The Brigands” throughout the film, as though there has only ever been one group of brigands that everyone on this side of the galaxy should know about—typically go to a specific planet to cull girls and young women to be their “brides” because their “society” is all male.

As has already been noted by many: This is just the plot to Mad Max: Fury Road, a thing that never needs to be reduxed for fun family entertainment. It is also important to know that this angle has been added wholesale to the story for the purposes of the film, so there are no adaptation excuses to be made. Somehow it was decided that a movie aimed at young women really needed a sex slavery angle to make it work. And no, it’s not a single aside that’s never brought up again until the film’s ending—it is the entire premise of the film. Kara and Ruthye are immediately sold out on the next planet by a family desperate to get their daughter back from the brigands by exchanging them. (Does this make the plot of Krem simply stealing Kara’s ship nonsensical if he’s constantly looking for young women to abduct? It does! But who can be bothered to care about that?) Oh, and that entire family is slaughtered by our bad guy to make a point to the audience.

What point? Aside from Krem being an awful guy—we got it, thanks—the moral at the core of the film is that Ruthye shouldn’t be trying to get revenge against this guy because killing him will “change her.” Kara insists this over and over again, that she herself is a lost cause, but Ruthye can still be saved from this fate. And there are several problems with this conceit, starting with the fact that Kara hasn’t been killing people either, yet she’s acting like a cold-blooded murderer who has Seen It All. The reason underneath it is all tied up in Kara’s terrible Krypton backstory, rendered in the paint-by-numbers flashback we find later in the film, but it still doesn’t stand up to scrutiny; Kara’s family and world died from hubris, not from murder. But more to the point, claiming that a 13-year-old girl could and should feel permanently tarnished, spiritually, mentally, or emotionally, for killing a man who mass murdered her family and plans to use her as a breeding sex slave is absurd.

In fact, it’s not just absurd, it’s grotesquely irresponsible to give young women that message today. What Tom King and Bilquis Evely created in the comics was a wholly different story where a young woman got to effectively be Inigo Montoya, taking a full (and lengthy) journey where she questions what revenge means to her. Woman of Tomorrow is based loosely on True Grit, and written far more like the original novel by Charles Portis that the westerns were based upon—with Ruthye serving as the narrator of the story and treating it like a personal epic, learning from Supergirl’s example as they travel together. Instead, this film lets a young, grieving alcoholic (who has possibly never had to contend with the threat of molestation or rape due to her superpowers) tell a child that wanting to end the life of the man who views her as subhuman will harm her irreparably.

But Kara’s allowed to hurt him because of her dog.

We’re probably supposed to forgive all this due to Jason Momoa’s turn as Lobo, a fan favorite who has never made his way into the film realm until now. And sure, I love a morally gray character who only helps our heroes because they’ve got an agenda of their own. You know what I don’t love? That they also used this character for his blithe ability to refer to the hero of our film, Supergirl, by the nickname “Tits.” Tits! Because, you know, she’s got those! But you know what, I’m done, they can have it. I’ll just let it slide—

—provided Harley Quinn shows up in the next movie and calls Superman the “Big Blue Schlong” the whole way through. Every time he’s on screen. Loud enough for him to hear it and get a reaction.

(Note: My colleague heard “ditz” in the theater, but my movie buddy also heard “tits,” which means that more than one person in the decision-making chain made bad choices. Regardless, that feels like a pretty egregious word similarity that many folks are liable to mishear by design: one word intended for the adults that demeans women and one for the kids that demeans girls the world over, as boys are never called ditzes.)

This is probably where I should taper off, despite the many deep-running flaws I haven’t even gotten around to yet, like the fact that green suns can work in comics (kinda) but just look silly on screen, or that it makes no sense for the heroic characters to use the language of the villains when referring to trafficked women, or the fact that films really need to come up with another look for “grungy bad guys” in blockbusters that isn’t cribbed from punks with extensive body modifications. But I’m out. Even David Corenswet’s meager appearances as Superman do nothing to elevate the mood. (Get a freaking couch, Clark, you’re over 30.)

I’m not saying that Supergirl bodes ill for the DCU as a whole, but… no, I lied, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Save your money, or go see Backrooms again. icon-paragraph-end

About the Author

Emmet Asher-Perrin

Author

Emmet Asher-Perrin is the Entertainment Editor of Reactor. Their words can also be perused in tomes like Queers Dig Time Lords, Lost Transmissions: The Secret History of Science Fiction and Fantasy, and Uneven Futures: Strategies for Community Survival from Speculative Fiction. They cannot ride a bike or bend their wrists. You can find them on Bluesky and other social media platforms where they are mostly quiet because they'd rather talk to you face-to-face.
Learn More About Emmet
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
9 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
ChristopherLBennett
2 days ago

“[T]he studio put absolutely no effort into promoting [The Marvels]”: This may be somewhat unfair to the studio, as there was an actors’ strike at the time that made it impossible for the cast to participate in promoting the film until the strike was resolved just before its release. This had a negative effect on the box office of all the films premiering around that time; indeed, The Marvels was #1 in its release week despite doing worse than the norm for MCU films.

“Lobo, a fan favorite who has never made his way into the film realm until now”: Into the live-action or theatrical film realm, perhaps, but he’s appeared in three animated direct-to-video movies in the “Tomorrowverse” continuity, including its debut story Superman: Man of Tomorrow, Justice League: Warworld, and Crisis on Infinite Earths Part 3. As for the “fan favorite” part, I choose to dissent. I’ve always hated the character.

Capper7
1 day ago

Lobo did not refer to her as “Tits.” He called her “that Ditz from the dive bar” and she said that she had also been calling him the “Ditz from the dive bar.” It’s in the trailers.

billiam
1 day ago
Reply to  Capper7

Exactly. As I said in my comment, still not great but totally within character for Lobo.

ChristopherLBennett
8 hours ago
Reply to  billiam

I think it’s ameliorated by Supergirl countering “Funny, that’s what I’ve been calling you” and Lobo shrugging and saying that was fair. “Ditz” just means a silly or scatterbrained person, and while it does tend to be used mainly for young women, there’s nothing gendered in its etymology, which may be from “dizzy” or from German dutzig meaning dazed or punch-drunk.

ChristopherLBennett

“the moral at the core of the film is that Ruthye shouldn’t be trying to get revenge against this guy because killing him will “change her.”.. In fact, it’s not just absurd, it’s grotesquely irresponsible to give young women that message today.”

Is it? I think you’re conflating revenge with justice here. Absolutely predators should be brought to justice, but that’s a profoundly different thing from just killing them. The comic made that point — Ruthye realized that her drive for revenge was just surrendering to Krem’s chaos, letting it win. Pursuing justice rather than revenge is how we take a stand against that chaos and cruelty and preserve the decency in the world. The only difference I see between the comic’s approach and what you’re describing in the movie is that the comic’s Kara let Ruthye figure this out for herself.

mr-kitka
1 day ago

Thank you for this, Emmet. I can’t speak for you, but I certainly see distinct parallels in what you’ve written to the rage that I experience in relation to queerness/not-being-a-cis-man when I watch certain films.

Many films make me want to flip a table for many reasons and I have successfully avoided almost all superhero films to date. (I saw Guardians of the Galaxy because I was asked to cosplay Starlord and I liked Blue Beetle because of what I knew about how it got made. Oh, and Fast Color is the best!)

I tried to watch the new Superman, but the point at which the dog and the baby were both having their lives endangered as an off-hand plotpoint was the end for me. I have seen some of the various animal torture plot points in super-films over my partner’s shoulder and had very strong negative emotional responses (to be polite). (Although let’s be clear, I loved Mad Max Fury Road. I am a huge horror fan and love practical gore effects. I am not squeamish. I just don’t like this flavor of harming the most vulnerable as a shallow shortcut to feelz.)

I have no issue with anyone enjoying these films, and I also think that it’s very important to acknowledge that we bring ourselves to every movie that we see. No one can explain away the feelings that comes from my individual lived experiences and cause me to respond to a film in a particular way.

So much of what you described made me sad and upset just to read about it. And many people may watch the movie and enjoy it. However, this feels like it might be one of those films that was created by people who have not experienced not-being-a-cis-man in the world (cue SNL’s “Welcome to Hell) and therefore have not been sensitized to what might feel small or normal to them, but signifies a lifetime of sadness and terror for others.

To that point, I am terrified to post this. I don’t participate in any social media and one reason is that I have seen what happens if you get noticed by the wrong people on the internet.

Which is all to say, thank you for writing this. I recognize your rage and want to support it with my solidarity. Movies mean something, stories mean something, and I am so happy that Reactor is here as a space where I can read your words, and the words of all of the other amazing Reactor writers!

Last edited 1 day ago by mr-kitka
billiam
1 day ago

While I respect what you’re saying here (at least you gave real reasons for disliking the movie, unlike most of the negative reviews popping up everywhere online) I have to disagree. I saw the movie last night with my daughter and her boyfriend and we all loved it.

Since I mostly stopped reading comics over 25 years ago, I have not read the source material, but it was your typical True Grit western revenge story, which I thought worked really well for the movie.

The cinematography was beautiful and there were some truly breathtaking shots (my favorite probably being the long shot during the final battle that kept jumping between slow motion and real time).

As Capper7 said above, Lobo called Kara “Ditz” not “Tits”, still not great, but it’s in character for him. One last thing, Jason Momoa was born to play Lobo!

John C. Bunnell
22 hours ago

Let me begin by saying that I have not yet seen Supergirl – and also that I absolutely intend to do so.

I’ll also begin by acknowledging that this is a powerful, thoughtful, and strongly written personal essay.

What this is NOT

…is a useful release-day review of the movie. And I say this as someone who, in a prior career, spent well over a decade being paid to write book reviews.

I do NOT say this based on the opinions expressed in the essay – indeed, I don’t have the basis to agree or disagree on a lot of those opinions, in significant part because I haven’t read the material from which we’re told here that the script was adapted. And like a high percentage of the essay’s prospective readers, I am very unliikely for a variety of reasons to go out and find and read that material. This latter bit is relevant to my point – the essay spends more of its time comparing the movie to that material than is useful for the majority of readers who are looking at it as a movie review,. And readers may reasonably be forgiven for doing that, because the piece is tagged “movie review” rather than “essay”.

The thing is, it’s a review’s job to be useful. Spider Robinson’s remark, long ago, is on point: “A critic tells you whether it’s Art; a reviewer tells you whether it’s any d*mn good to read.” As a reviewer, one writes with one’s audience in mind. I posted a response to another piece here on Tor.com just recently pointing readers at a review I wrote (not for pay) of Pat Murphy’s The Adventures of Mary Darling. That review was mixed – I think the book is flawed in significant ways, but I also agree with the majority of other reviewers who point out the ways in which it succeeds, and anyone reading that review is likely to get a good idea as to whether or not they will like the novel based on what I’ve said. Similarly, I periodically tell people who ask my views on Gregory Maguire’s Wicked – which I did not like at all* – but I also tell them that I’m an outlier, and caution them that my reaction is based on the book and not on any of the subsequent adaptations.

For another angle on the review-vs.-essay distinction, I’d point readers at Leah Schnelbach’s recent post on Masters of the Universe – and simultaneously at a post by Athena Scalzi over on Whatever, also regarding that film. Both Leah and Athena framed their remarks on the question of whether or not it’s a good bad movie – and they came down on opposite sides. Not having seen the film at that point, my immediate reaction was to suggest that they might well both be right…and, earlier this past week, I went and saw the movie myself.

And you know? I think both of them are right – I can see where both of them are coming from, and while my own take aligns more with Athena’s than Leah’s, I can absolutely see where Leah was coming from. I do think, though, that Leah’s piece does a better job than this one of balancing the scales between essay and review.

Again, I’m absolutely not saying that this piece is badly written. It isn’t – quite the opposite, in fact. I’m only saying that I think it’s mislabeled – and also that both the mislabeling and the timing are unfortunate in a way that serves Reactor readers badly. Were I running the zoo, I think the best response Reactor might make would be to commission and publish a straight-up review of Supergirl on the movie’s own merits, and to reclassify this post as the powerful personal essay that it actually is.

*My reaction to Wicked? I threw the book (very carefully) across the room, specifically so I could tell the members of my then-book group I’d done so. And then I went and sold the book back to Powell’s.

Last edited 22 hours ago by John C. Bunnell
wiredog
3 hours ago

Based on things I’ve read in this review, and other reviews, and the comments to both, I think that a lot of problems lie with the theaters.

Apparently it was shot too dark. No, it’s beautifully shot and very bright! The sound is muddy, no it’s one of the few movies where you can actually hear the dialog!

Never mind the half hour of commercials before the movie..,