Since Ghostbusters 20161 Hollywood producers have learned the code to shield themselves from reprisals: Blame the fans. If the media product bombs, the fans are too misogynistic, racist, homophobic, whatever.
But also since then, actors have used it to signal to the audience that “Yeah, this movie is going to suck. You’ve been warned.” Whether they’ve meant to signal it or not. Sandra Bullock compared the loathsome Ocean’s 8 to Ghostbusters 2016 before it came out—it bombed. When Ewan MacGregor played Roman Sionis in Birds of Prey,2 he described the role as a chance to be part of a feminist film that tackles misogyny in both its extreme and everyday forms—thanks for the warning, no one went to see the lousy film.
And now, Milly Alcock,3 who will play Supergirl, has similarly signaled that this film is trash and no one should see it.
I hope the screen shot stays there, I can’t bring myself to quote that stupidity. I feel like I’m losing braincells just reading it.
But breaking out the defense of the movie that “the misogynists will throw crap at it because I’m female” is possibly the biggest signal that everyone is going to hate it.
This isn’t that big of a surprise. I took one look at the trailer and said this was a bad idea. Looking at Gunn’s comic book sources, and script writers signaled additional problems, only with bright flashing lights and an alarm klaxon. Gunn has hired a nobody to write the script, and is using knock comic book hack Tom King as a source material, all so Gunn can make Supergirl yet another variation on Guardians of the Galaxy.
Usually, actors wait until the month of the film’s release before they start throwing up the air defenses. Supergirl doesn’t release until June. If she’s pulling this crap in late March / Early April, that strikes me as premature. Why do it that early? My only conclusion is that someone thinks that Gunn’s Supergirl is going to be such a dumpster fire, they need to defend it right this minute.
On second thought, this shouldn’t be a surprise. After all, after the recent WB buyout by Paramount, this may be James Gunn’s only shot at keeping his job as the head of the DC Cinematic Universe. He has already spent an ungodly amount of money on side projects that has seen little return on investment—from Creature Commandos to Peacemaker. Looking up the box officer on Jame’s Gunn’s Superman, Gunn seems to be hard at work cooking the books to declare the film profitable.
Therefore, Supergirl has to make money. That at least explains the early defense of a film that already looks pretty bad, and gets worse the more that you look at it.
James Gunn’s involvement in DC films gave me zero interest in watching Supergirl. The trailer gave me negative interest. Alcock’s statement induces nausea.
The funniest part is that, given this statement, I have no doubt that Lobo will represent Toxic masculinity. He is of course, the most anticipated element of the film.
But it is good that Alcock signaled to everyone that this film is going to be garbage. I’m certain that if anyone had any doubt, she has dispelled them.
Again, feel free to ask me anything in the comments. If you get an email, you can ping me through the comment button at the top.
And please, feel free to buy a book, or leave a book review. Either would be greatly appreciated.
Perhaps earlier. But Ghostbusters 2016 is the clearest demarcation line.
Or any of the other stupid titles that film was called—it had three, last I checked.
I can think of no good way to pronounce her last name.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please, by all means, leave a message below. I welcome any and all comments. However, language that could not make it to network television will result in your comment being deleted. I don';t like saying it, but prior events have shown me that I need to. Thanks.