Spoilers Supergirl

[DrunkonDuty]

I also liked Black Widow. Very good super hero spy thriller.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

As for Supergirl - as per my previous posts, I liked it.

I don't think it's great super hero movie. But Kara is really well portrayed. The action scenes are fine. I wouldn't recommend it to friends unless they were, like me, super hero junkies. But if you are a super hero junkie - go see it.

 

[Kaodi]

Sure but to discount the fact that character is just a rip-off of another character which plays no role in viewer interest is a weird take IMO.

I am not sure what the point of this is. Does it really matter that Supergirl is a "ripoff" of Superman, or that Batgirl is a "ripoff" of Batman? By the same token The Flash is a ripoff of The Flash, Green Lantern is a ripoff of Green Lantern, The Human Torch is a ripoff of The Human Torch, Zatanna is a ripoff of Giovanni. But no one would attribute the failure of movies of those latter characters as being because the characters are "ripoffs".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I thought somebody mentioned sex-appeal not that far upthread. I could be mistaken. It is not entirely unrelated to how they are both A-list actors though.

To be fair, most male A list actors aren't Jack Black.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I am not sure what the point of this is. Does it really matter that Supergirl is a "ripoff" of Superman, or that Batgirl is a "ripoff" of Batman? By the same token The Flash is a ripoff of The Flash, Green Lantern is a ripoff of Green Lantern, The Human Torch is a ripoff of The Human Torch, Zatanna is a ripoff of Giovanni. But no one would attribute the failure of movies of those latter characters as being because the characters are "ripoffs".

You're focusing on a word instead of actually understanding what I'm saying.

The claim has been made that interest in the character is of no importance to the viewing public - as if any character no matter what draws the same amount of interest.

That is blatantly a stupid assertion. Clearly character interest plays a role.

Do you agree with the original assertion? And discount comic book history which reflects a general lack of interest in the character?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

o you think Supergirl is on the same level as them before they blew up?

Considerably higher level than them. That's why Supergirl got a movie in the 1980s (and appeared in TV shows of the time). The film may have been bad, but the fact that they made it at all, when few superhero movies were being made, shows that she was considered a high profile character by the film studio.

Those were the days before Marvel started rooting through the back catalogue of also-rans, and got lucky with some good casting.

They did attempt a Captain America movie in 1979, but that was only a TV movie with a tiny budget. Supergirl getting a proper cinematic movie shows she was considered higher profile than Captain America.

"Supergirl is and obscure character" is both untrue in itself, an has nothing to do with the failure of this movie, since far more obscure superheroes have been massive hits.

 

[Zardnaar]

Considerably higher level than them. That's why Supergirl got a movie in the 1980s (and appeared in TV shows of the time). The film may have been bad, but the fact that they made it at all, when few superhero movies were being made, shows that she was considered a high profile character by the film studio.

Those were the days before Marvel started rooting through the back catalogue of also-rans, and got lucky with some good casting.

They did attempt a Captain America movie in 1979, but that was only a TV movie with a tiny budget. Supergirl getting a proper cinematic movie shows she was considered higher profile than Captain America.

"Supergirl is and obscure character" is both untrue in itself, an has nothing to do with the failure of this movie, since far more obscure superheroes have been massive hits.

That movie also bombed. I did say MCU did a better job than DC.

New movies the highest grossing Supergirl movie.

 

[Tonguez]

Considerably higher level than them. That's why Supergirl got a movie in the 1980s (and appeared in TV shows of the time). The film may have been bad, but the fact that they made it at all, when few superhero movies were being made, shows that she was considered a high profile character by the film studio.

Those were the days before Marvel started rooting through the back catalogue of also-rans, and got lucky with some good casting.

They did attempt a Captain America movie in 1979, but that was only a TV movie with a tiny budget. Supergirl getting a proper cinematic movie shows she was considered higher profile than Captain America.

"Supergirl is and obscure character" is both untrue in itself, an has nothing to do with the failure of this movie, since far more obscure superheroes have been massive hits.

I think the 1984 Supergirl movie can be entirely attributed to the success of Christopher Reeves Superman, it was a direct spin-off due to the Producers holding the rights to the 'Superman' related characters.

Especially given that Batman and Wonder Woman already had successful TV shows and deserved movies

Hell, we got Wes Cravens Swamp Thing movie in the 80's too but that hardly attest to the popularity of the character at that time

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That movie also bombed

Sure, because it was an absolutely terrible movie. Not because the protagonist wasn’t well known enough, it wouldn’t have been made in the first place if that was the case.

 

[Kaodi]

You're focusing on a word instead of actually understanding what I'm saying.

The claim has been made that interest in the character is of no importance to the viewing public - as if any character no matter what draws the same amount of interest.

That is blatantly a stupid assertion. Clearly character interest plays a role.

Do you agree with the original assertion? And discount comic book history which reflects a general lack of interest in the character?

I reread the sentence I replied to and I am not sure it actually makes sense on its own. But I went back through the replies and I will say that I think that issue is where you draw the line between actual comic popularity and audience priming. Boys like some things and girls like other things is not a hard fast rule and may not be based on any essential difference between boys and girls. But it is an observable phenomenon. Other things, like sexism, are also observable phenomena, and those things can sometimes affect even primed audiences a lot. But, to the point I was just replying to in that post, character originality is also one of those "other things" and I think it is observable that it does not play a heck of a lot of a role in what makes a character a success or not and so the fact that a characters name appears to be "Superman, but a girl" or "Batman, but a girl," is not really here nor there with regards to whether a movie should be successful or not.