"Supergirl" Underperforms at Box Office, Prominent Media Outlet Cites "Misogyny" Among Fans

A familiar pattern often emerges within the entertainment industry when a highly anticipated production fails to meet commercial expectations: a search for external factors rather than internal missteps. This dynamic has become increasingly evident in recent years, particularly as studios introduce content with overt social or political themes, sometimes integrating these discussions into promotional campaigns in ways that appear to serve personal viewpoints.

The recent release of "Supergirl" provides a contemporary illustration of this phenomenon.

"Supergirl" Falls Short of Box Office Projections

"Supergirl" marked the second installment in the new DC Studios cinematic universe, overseen by co-CEO James Gunn. The film benefited from an extensive marketing and media push designed to boost ticket sales, including comprehensive profiles of star Milly Alcock in publications such as Vanity Fair and Variety. Warner Bros. also initiated a substantial $100 million promotional partnership with well-known brands.

Initial projections anticipated the film would achieve $60-$70 million domestically during its opening weekend, with similar figures internationally. However, official reports revealed a domestic opening of only $37 million. This significant shortfall positions the studio for potential losses amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, considering the substantial production and advertising expenditures.

Beyond the considerable financial setback, the film has garnered largely unfavorable reviews from both critics and audiences. Given the competitive summer movie landscape, it is conceivable that "Supergirl" may struggle to reach $100 million at the U.S. box office, marking it as both a financial and creative disappointment. In the wake of this outcome, questions have naturally arisen regarding accountability.

One might consider Gunn, as the creative head of DC, responsible for overseeing artistic decisions. Studio executives at Warner Bros., who approved the film's production, cast, plot, and direction, could also share responsibility. The writer, an inexperienced former actress with only a single short film from 2018 on her resume, is another potential area of scrutiny.

Milly Alcock's Comments Draw Scrutiny

Adding another layer to the discussion were comments made by lead actress Milly Alcock in the period leading up to the film's debut. In an interview with Vanity Fair several months prior to release, Alcock stated,

"It definitely made me aware that simply existing as a woman in that space is something that people comment on. We have become very comfortable having this weird ownership of women’s bodies. I can’t really stop them. I can only be myself."

She elaborated on this perspective in a subsequent interview with Variety, remarking,

"I didn’t even say ‘men’ — I said ‘people!’ And they got so angry. I was like, ‘You’re proving my point. You’re proving my point!’"

Alcock further suggested that much of the criticism originated from specific demographics, noting,

"And it’s from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts. Or someone’s name and then ‘Dad of four, Christian,’ which is hilarious to me."

Days before the film's release, during an interview with Queerly Radio, Alcock expressed her appreciation for the film's narrative not revolving around a male character. When questioned about exploring her character's "queerness" for the role, she responded,

"It wasn't, but in honor of 'Pride month,' as I'm getting all these questions...I don't know. I think that what makes this film beautiful is that it's not centered around a man, it's not centered around love at all. I don't really know. I don't know. I don't know. She probably goes both ways."

Observers might conclude that these statements, which seemed tangential to the core mission of attracting ticket buyers, could have contributed to the film's underperformance. However, the subsequent post-mortem discussions following the opening weekend suggest a different interpretation of the film's challenges.

Industry Figures and Media Outlet Point Fingers

In a recent interview with a prominent national newspaper, DC Studios Co-CEO Peter Safran acknowledged the film's disappointing financial results.

"While Supergirl didn’t meet our box office expectations, it’s just one component of a broader, long-term strategy at DC Studios that we remain confident in,"

Safran explained.

The same publication reported that Warner Bros. executives addressed the public's irritation with Alcock's remarks not by admitting they were ill-advised, but by attributing blame to the audience's reaction. According to the article, these executives

"were surprised by both the ferocity of the backlash and its reach, believing the culture had evolved past that sort of campaign."

This perspective draws parallels to previous instances where public figures in Hollywood made divisive comments while promoting major productions.

The national newspaper's analysis also suggested that the "largely male" fan base's "misogyny" played a role. It stated,

"Female-led superhero movies have been rejected almost uniformly over the past five years or so, perhaps reflecting a resurgent misogyny among the core fan base, which is largely male."

This approach aligns with a recurring pattern seen in contemporary film production and its associated media coverage, where internal issues are often downplayed in favor of external explanations. The narrative presented suggests that the film's struggles are not due to Alcock’s promotional comments, Gunn’s choice of an inexperienced writer, or the creative team’s execution, but rather the audience's negative response to a star’s intentionally divisive remarks or a film’s deliberate shift away from male-centric narratives. This, according to the national newspaper, constitutes "misogyny."

Rethinking Accountability in Entertainment

Critics argue that this tendency to deflect responsibility is a significant challenge for the industry and its supporters. They suggest that focusing on fundamental principles—such as hiring performers who do not alienate potential viewers, producing quality storytelling irrespective of a writer's demographic profile, and acknowledging that certain female empowerment narratives may appeal to a more limited audience—could lead to more successful outcomes. Early data from "Supergirl" revealed that approximately 59% of its moviegoers were men. This interpretation suggests that disinterest from female audiences could be categorized as misogyny.

The underlying principles for engaging audiences are straightforward. Yet, some argue that even these basic concepts appear challenging for the entertainment sector to grasp in the current climate. Responsibility for these outcomes, many contend, rests firmly with the industry itself, not with its fan base.