34
votes
‘Supergirl’ fall to earth with $68m worldwide opening
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Box Office: 'Toy Story 5' Near $600M, 'Supergirl' Bombs $68M Worldwide
- Authors
- Anthony D'Alessandro
- Published
- Jun 28 2026
- Word count
- 684 words
It was good. Not Superman level, but better than most Marvel stuff from the past few years. Jason Momoa as Lobo definitely added to it.
It had an odd sense of feeling like it was trying to be a James Gunn film, but not actually being one. It connects well with the prior film and helps expand the world they're building, serving as an important explanation of Kara's origins, since that's less well-tread territory than Clark's.
There seems to be a lot of harm done by the usual pattern I see: a lot of people already talking about a film being "bad" before it even releases, and that vague sentiment gets passed around. (Add a multiplier if the protagonist is a woman.) The buzz gets flattened before the film even effectively exists to the public, driven by people who have loud opinions but don't actually watch films.
I mentioned I was seeing it on opening day to multiple people IRL, and got various responses along the lines of "isn't it being panned?" Coupled with admitting they hadn't been to a theater in years. It's a movie, not a car. It's not an investment. It's a few dollars to try something. Why should I care about the opinion of someone who doesn't engage with the art form? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I agree. I saw it with my kids Sunday afternoon. 46M, 14M, 12F, 8M. We all enjoyed it. I found this interpretation of Supergirl refreshing. I think she will be a great counterbalance to Superman's goody-two-shoes. I really like the character and I hope she gets more screen time. I would love to see her and Hawkgirl trading barbs.
I guess I can add a data point being someone that doesn't read comics, doesn't enjoy Marvel movies, and watch a super hero movie once in a while more out of curiosity (“what is there that's making everyone go to the movies?”), the last one being the Superman one that (I guess?) is connected to this.
It's hard to get excited. I was surprised that there is a Supergirl (as much as that somehow there's a Super Dog…???). Saw the trailer, and nothing in particular stood out. The villain was so forgettable I don't even recall who is, and the plot, or what was shown of it… the same.
This characters lack universal recognition that more stablished ones have. Unless the movie is outstanding, it's hard to break the bubble. (And, worse for fans and studios, turns out that a big share of comics fans are misogynistic, sadly.)
For context the much maligned Morbius in 2022 opened globally with 84 million and the domestic opening was 39 million. Supergirl doing 68M WW and 38M is horrific. It’s an absolute disaster and will probably lose WB 200M.
I thought this would be a Thunderbolts. Would make a decent amount of money but doesn’t quite break even, but at least gets received well that it helps build back the brand. This didn’t do that since it was received poorly critically and is sporting some of the worst audience scores of any superhero movie.
We did a reboot just to end with similar results to what Snyder was doing.
This is also the first DC project Gunn didn’t direct or write. Which means he might not know how to discern if a project is good.
I do think someone like Dan Lin, who was in talks to take over DC, would have probably been a better manager. Since he’s just a producer and is able to make tough decisions, especially as he’s now in charge of Netflix. We can see he would have done stuff like, shelf the 2023 slate, force the Pattinson Batman to merge with the universe, and had a focus on the big name characters. I also think he would have gotten Lord and Miller to do Superman but that’s besides everything.
Maybe Clayface will do better, and Man of Tomorrow will hit, but it’s just a tough environment to make superhero movies with smaller characters especially when they’re not good.
Super heroes dominated the box office for a solid decade. I'm just tired of them at this point and just kinda space out when trailers for them come up
There was a discussion happening in a music subreddit about how if you came up in 2016-2019, that the current popular taste in music is jarring. Because that era was defined by trap beats and bedroom pop and you don’t really hear a lot of that anymore.
And I was a bit confused as to how that could be jarring when I think trends came in organic, certain albums and songs would come up and you can see how that led to other music. But there was a lot of people agreeing with it. And some of them were mourning that time period and how we don’t have music like that anymore.
And I relate it to this because superhero movies were dominant around the same time and now other stuff is popular. But I don’t feel it in my own taste. I take everything individually, every movie every song whatever.
That being said this isn’t good lol. And there hasn’t been a lot of good movies in the genre since 2019. But I’m sure ten years from now people who are teenagers are gonna talk about video game movies in a similar way.
I was never a superhero fan before movies made superheros popular. There was novelty in the shared connected universe of the MCU and I think that fueled its meteoric rise. Once that novelty wore off (and perhaps more importantly, the execution of that aspect of that MCU fell off a cliff), there was nothing to keep me and other people around anymore. These movies started to have the same problems their source material was already notorious for: Constant reboots, meaningless deaths, and convoluted interconnected storylines that end up going nowhere.
I don't think superhero movies are automatically bad, it just takes more to get me interested in one now that the novelty is gone and the average quality is kinda in the toilet. Supergirl actually sounds like a movie I would really like, if the execution was good, but it sounds like it isn't.
If you’re interested, the graphic the movie is based on is fantastic. Woman of Tomorrow
For me, a good superhero movie was always about the traditional hero arc (underdog protagonist loses, gets powers, wins, fan service action scenes, big blockbuster showdown, power ballad over credits), with an indulgent dose of justice fantasy. It was always a formula with limited life, and it's definitely been squeezed to where what would have been a good superhero movie to be twenty years ago would now feel extremely formulaic and trite.
I also can no longer connect with the justice fantasy, whether due to age or just the current state of the world.
It’s probably the age thing. At the end of the day this stuff is essentially YA, it’s fiction for teenagers.
Superhero stories certainly can age up and have plenty of complexity, but they've mostly gotten dumber over time. They usually go for cheap bits that're easier to understand. The memes get mimicked without understanding what made the original iconic.
I went to the theater with my kid this weekend because she wanted to see Toy Story (not that we expected it to be good, but the kid wanted to see it so whatever) and this was the first that either my wife or I had heard of the Supergirl movie.
Our collective response to the poster was "oh, another superhero movie" and that was pretty much the end of it. If someone invited us out to watch it as a group I'm sure we'd check it out, but I can't imagine us going out of our way to check it out on our own.
I think we've explored the superhero shtick from every angle now. The director and actors/actresses have nothing to do with the burnout of the genre. The idea that people aren't seeing this movie because it has a female lead seems like a bit of a stretch.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I adore the book/series it’s based on. It’s good reading in part because the characters show growth and change over the course of the story. Trying to lock one of the characters into a single descriptive word is then is only a characterization for one part of the story, not the whole thing. Maybe not for Lobo, I’m pretty sure he wasn’t in the original but I can see how he would be a good addition.
The film cost $170 million to make. Calling it a failure for making almost half that on opening weekend seems to me to be more of a statement about the marketing than the movie. For the most part, female superhero movies have a harder time; the first one came out less than a decade ago. The studios held back because they didn’t think these movies would be profitable, then they waited until folks were burned out to actually make them.
Ah yes, the good old self-fulfilling prophecy.
"We can't make another female-led superhero movie...they always bomb!"
(nevermind the Vogon-like marketting and timing)
I know the numbers are such that it doesn’t seem bad. But the studio isn’t taking all of that gross, even without counting the marketing, the movie theaters take a cut of that gross.
And because the film is so poorly received it’s probably not gonna make even the budget amount, let alone the 375M break even point that’s been reported in trades.
Superman is always fascinating to me. Here is a person who is completely invincible unless you have a magical MacGuffin (kryptonite). So either you have this MacGuffin or you have no stakes. This always made Superman the most boring superhero to me unless they can think up a clever way to makes interesting stakes.
I still watch the movies because I guess I hate myself? I don't know. The moment I saw them introduce the new Supergirl I knew it was entirely so they could have a spin off movie. "Hey look, it's Superman but with an attitude". It's a shame that this gets dumped on a female character. It might have been interesting if they reversed tropes. Let's have Superman be something closer to like a Hancock character and Supergirl can be the super serious saviour of the world. That might have been interesting, as much as I assume that will never happen.
Anyways, I guess this is just a long rant to say I'm not surprised that Supergirl is a flop.
The trick to a good Superman is to make the stakes something his invincibility can't solve. This applies to other super heroes as well even when they aren't invincible. The Dark Knight works in part because Batman can't just brute force a solution to the problems presented in the film. He has to choose between saving Harvey and saving Rachel. A big part of act 3 needs the people on the two boats to make the right choice while he hunts down the Joker. These conflicts provide highly effective tension without needing Batman himself to be in any personal physical danger.
Superman is a foil to the American obsession with violence. He's invincible, but powerless to face the problems that really matter without losing his conviction that "might makes right" is evil. Yes, he could punch Lex Luthor's face into a mist, and we all might want to see it on some level, but Superman is there to remind everyone that it's wrong. Real solutions are more complicated than that.
None of the character decisions about Kara were made for this film either. They're adapting a very well-regarded comic series.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of how the movie came about. It’s not like they made up this premise - it’s an adaptation of the Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow comic series, which was very well received.
Obviously the movie did not execute well, but Supergirl being jaded was not something they invented for the movie. It’s part of her character arc in one of the most critically acclaimed comics that she’s in, especially as the primary hero.
I do think it's an odd choice, just after Superman did so well for not being the jaded dark version, to choose to adapt this story. I've heard good things about the comic, but I also don't think it's the right tone for a supergirl story right now when we've seen everything do the "actually everything sucks so i'll drink my problems away" approach.
I don’t know, I wouldn’t call it dark. Like I would describe it as a space western. They go to a variety of colorful alien worlds. Supergirl ain’t feeling it at the start, but, it’s like the same way Indiana Jones is jaded. It’s not a dark and gritty setting even if it is edgier than your average superhero comic.
Sure, dark is probably the wrong word, but that trope is very played out right now, and doubly so with how the trailers made it the entire focus. Yet another "how will they ever get their groove back" plot in a sea of them.
I think the difference is that Kara has never had a chance to find her groove, in the first place. The journey is about Kara figuring out who she really is, apart from Superman.
Still the same arc, still the same beats. Still very over focused. They did the exact same thing with Johnny Cage in the recent MK2
That’s just kind of pedantic tbh. For the most part no one knows anything about Supergirl, but that’s besides the point. The comic was acclaimed
No because the user said the comic was acclaimed and your rebuttal was to dismiss the claim on the basis that normal people didn’t acclaim it or whatever. That’s pedantry and a nonsequitor. Normies don’t read comics and would therefore have very little knowledge of Superman’s extended family.
My read on their comment was more innocuous: that comic book readers and comic movie watchers are very different demographics. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the sentiment, since I haven't seen the movie.
It appears the general public liked it just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergirl_(comic_book)#Supergirl:_Woman_of_Tomorrow_(2021%E2%80%932022)
They always go with the classic green stuff that makes him weak, but did you know there's bunch of varieties of Kryptonite?
Also, he's vulnerable to magic, can't see through lead, can be temporarily downed by high volt/amp electricity and certain types of radiation, he's weak if he's out of yellow sunlight for too long or exposed to red sunlight for long periods, he can be weakened by some drugs (if modified with green kryptonite), some viruses, he's got no natural defenses against telepathy/psionic attacks/some mind control, you can sometimes use his strengths against him (especially his super-sensitive hearing), and it's well-documented that he's not completely invulnerable: a sufficiently strong opponent could literally just beat him to death.
It's just that nobody ever reaches for any of this stuff outside of comics or the movies. It's just good ol' Green Kryptonite.
It was nice to see that as a thing in Supergirl, actually. Most of the times she's unable to do something are due to the stars on whichever planet she's on, or the star being blocked while in space. Green kryptonite takes a back seat. They also get her with some other tricks that are weakening but not incapacitating.
I am aware of some of those to some degree. As a person who has never read a comic in my life, my knowledge, or lack there of, comes entirely from movies and culture osmosis.
I'm pretty ignorant of the kind of storylines superman tends to be put in but there are many genres in fiction where characters are at no risk of physical harm but still manage to have stakes: relationship stakes, moral stakes, reputational, etc. . Obviously the superhero genre creates an expectation that it'll come down to two people punching each other, but for example if an all-powerful superhero is presented with a moral dilemma then you get an interesting conflict: what is the right thing to do in this situation? Or if you can act, do you have a right to?
Mob psycho is an example I'm familiar with, it's about an invincibly powerful psychic who has realised that just being powerful doesn't make you happy, so he spends his time going to after school clubs, awkwardly meeting kids his age and struggling through sports he's not good at to become a well-rounded person. Periodically he encounters psychics who haven't made that effort and they're always miserable anti-social weirdos.
This is it exactly. Lots of Superman's common villains are designed around giving him non-physical challenges.
Luthor abuses public opinion and the law to shield himself. Bizarro is technically just confused, not bad, so Superman cant in good conscience just beat him up. Mr. Myxlpytlyk is a godlike higher dimensional entity that cant be harmed with violence. Toymaker I dont really get.
I think a good analog of what Superman stories should be like is Columbo. Columbo stories are not particularly tense, there are not always high stakes, Columbo himself is not usually stressed out. He is relaxed and in control of the situation at all times, and in the cases where someone does actually try to harm him Columbo had already figured out the plan and disarmed the threat in advance. Thats a good example of an "invincible" character who still has entertaining stories.
The problem, as you allude, is that superhero films are not designed around that, they are designed around struggles and clashes of equal strength, which just doesnt mesh well with Superman's core appeal.
Saw it this weekend and I thought it was decent, but definitely had issues.
I’d say 5 or 6 out of 10 seems fair. There are fun moments, but overall it’s just weak. I was really excited for this one, so I’m pretty bummed.
Ah, that's a shame, I was hoping for it to be fun. I like the lead actress, I think she can be fun to watch, so it's a shame if the rest of the film isn't holding up.
She’s great! Others may disagree but I think if you go in with very low expectations you could still have a fun time. Either go and enjoy some theater popcorn or wait until it comes to streaming.
But I’m a glutton for DC and Marvel films regardless of quality, so maybe that’s weird for me to recommend.
That's unfortunate. I was liking the vibe from the trailers, and quite enjoyed the Woman of Tomorrow comic so was hoping this would be a worthwhile watch during the current low point in superhero movies.
Unfortunately, I felt like they kept the beats of the original comic but missed the themes behind it, when they really should have done it the other way around.
I went in wanting to like the movie so much, but all I could feel was disappointment, walking out. But I also know I'm not being objective and judging the movie on its own merits because I can't help but compare it to the comic.
Story aside, though, Millie Alcock absolutely killed it as Kara and I definitely want to see a lot more of her in the DCU.
The film seemed to follow a similar media trajectory to projects like Snow White and Captain Marvel. The youtube commentary circuit latched onto some interview the lead actress gave and made this the new target of "wokeness gone mad" rhetoric.
Im curious as to what extent that subculture has influence on the broader moviegoing audience. On the one hand, I doubt many people who hate Rachel Zeigler and Brie Larson were going to go see a female led superhero movie to begin with. On the other hand, the online commentary community can be very loud, and maybe a consistent voice decrying these movies is enough to pull everyone else into preemptively judging the film harshly.
Of course, there seems to be a lot of other more valid reasons why the film is getting criticized. The color grading, deviations from the source material, etc. I might be giving too much credit to youtubers just because thats the part of the media arc that I actually saw.
Zero.
Their heyday was in the late 2010s. They have less viewers/followers now-a-days just like every nerd YouTube channel has. Their endless complaining didn’t stop Captain Marvel from being a billion dollar hit.
Any examples of that like Snow White, The Marvels, or this. There was just no interest from the general audience mixed in with poor word of mouth from those that actually saw the film. This didn’t even have a lot of noise like Snow White did.