The Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow News and Discussion Thread

[Elayis]

It's a double edged sword. On the one hand I don't want talented directors wasted on corporate "content" like this, but on the other hand Gillespie is an incredibly underwhelming choice that does nothing to pique my interest.

I'm not writing this movie off yet but so far it the DCU feels like off-brand Marvel, which defeats the purpose of being a competing company. DC being Pepsi to Marvel's Coke is not at all compelling. At least the DCEU had some variety and let the directors do their thing more or less.

 

[Invader Joker]

It's a double edged sword. On the one hand I don't want talented directors wasted on corporate "content" like this, but on the other hand Gillespie is an incredibly underwhelming choice that does nothing to pique my interest.

I'm not writing this movie off yet but so far it the DCU feels like off-brand Marvel, which defeats the purpose of being a competing company. DC being Pepsi to Marvel's Coke is not at all compelling. At least the DCEU had some variety and let the directors do their thing more or less.

I have zero doubt in my mind they'll let Craig do his own thing too tho. It's just "his own thing" will probably be exactly what they wanted. Also picking directors is easier said than done. We can list dozens and dozens of exciting names all we want, but there are like 3000 different factors that come into these sort of things in the end. It's more complicated than, let's say, fancasting an actor.

 

[emielaen]

Lol we just saying anything at this point man.

Off brand Marvel how? How are we coming to the conclusion that they won't let directors do their thing when they haven't even released anything yet? Nothing suggests Gunn is about to dictate how these directors shoot these scripts. Idk what we doing in these threads today lol

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I have zero doubt in my mind they'll let Craig do his own thing too tho. It's just "his own thing" will probably be exactly what they wanted. Also picking directors is easier said than done. We can list dozens and dozens of exciting names all we want, but there are like 3000 different factors that come into these sort of things in the end. It's more complicated than, let's say, fancasting an actor.

See, that is its own variation of dull. I have literally negative interest in these properties being adapted that way. Like, I have a hundred million problems with Joker and Todd Phillips but I have vastly more respect for and interest in what he is doing than this whole enterprise. I do agree though that, obviously, eight million things go into the choice of director in these movies - many of them so ultra specific and sometimes probably purely personal that we have no ability to know.

There's a model emerging (well, re-emerging in many ways) of blockbuster filmmaking that is just so much more exciting than this.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I'd like to throw Nida Manzoor into the conversation. Polite Society was one of my favorites from 2023. She did a job balancing the teenage angst with the action beats.

Holy ****, what a perfect choice she would have been. There's a particular anarchic, fun, feminine energy she could have brought to this project that would have been a blast.

 

[Invader Joker]

See, that is its own variation of dull. I have literally negative interest in these properties being adapted that way. Like, I have a hundred million problems with Joker and Todd Phillips but I have vastly more respect for and interest in what he is doing than this whole enterprise. I do agree though that, obviously, eight million things go into the choice of director in these movies - many of them so ultra specific and sometimes probably purely personal that we have no ability to know.

There's a model emerging (well, re-emerging in many ways) of blockbuster filmmaking that is just so much more exciting than this.

Amongst the trillion answers Gunn gives in Threads I'd really really like to see him answer what is his process exactly for picking directors. To some extent I think he's still figuring it out, but I imagine it truly is way more complicated than casting an actor or even hiring a screenwriter. Mangold was practically served on a silver platter but the fact it took them 5 months to find a director for Supergirl and it ended up being a man despite them initially being set to find a female director does tell me it was probably a really complicated search and it'd be interesting to at least get some sort of glimpse on what went into it.

Casting an actor is easy. You watch their audition and past performances and you already know what they're gonna do in the movie. Hiring a screenwriter like Gunn explained, they already give you the pitch so you know what they're gonna do. But hiring a director factors in so many weird technical and interpersonal things (Are they nice to work with? Do they treat their actors and crews right? Do they know how to set up good shots? Can they work on time and budget? What are their preferences for heads of department? Etc etc.) as well as financial realities I do think it's a way more ****ed up process than what can be guessed over here.

 

[Invader Joker]

Also. There are some exceptions to the rule but once an actor has gone through the process of auditions you already know whether the performance is gonna be good or bad. And if a writer makes a bad script they can just sent it over to be re-written or something and it doesn't cost that much. If you make the wrong director choice though you really are ****ed because if the movie is bad then it'll need to be reshot or you just end up with a bad movie.

 

[Comicbookguy339]

Lol we just saying anything at this point man.

Off brand Marvel how? How are we coming to the conclusion that they won't let directors do their thing when they haven't even released anything yet? Nothing suggests Gunn is about to dictate how these directors shoot these scripts. Idk what we doing in these threads today lol

If Gunn isn't able to convince Scorsese to do a DC movie and let him make it 3.5 hours long then Gunn is a total failure in my book.

 

[Elayis]

Lol we just saying anything at this point man.

Off brand Marvel how? How are we coming to the conclusion that they won't let directors do their thing when they haven't even released anything yet? Nothing suggests Gunn is about to dictate how these directors shoot these scripts. Idk what we doing in these threads today lol

It seems logical that Gunn's approach will largely mirror Feige's after his time spent in the Marvel machine, and Zazlav seems to be a more hands-on studio head given the losses DC has incurred recently. Time will tell, of course, and I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but so far the announced filmmakers (Gunn, Gillespie, Muschietti and Mangold) are journeymen directors at best and have done nothing that particularly interest me. Mangold's the only one that stands out, but Indiana Jones was a creative failure and the last film of his that I wholeheartedly enjoyed was 3:10 to Yuma. I'm not a Gunn fan, so Superman would have to be the best movie he's ever made (by a large margin) for it to truly wow me. Right now I'm only interested because he's been saying all of the right things so far and the cast is pretty good. If the DCU only ends up being on-par with his Guardians films then count me out.

 

[Invader Joker]

It seems logical that Gunn's approach will largely mirror Feige's after his time spent in the Marvel machine, and Zazlav seems to be a more hands-on studio head given the losses DC has incurred recently. Time will tell, of course, and I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but so far the announced filmmakers (Gunn, Gillespie, Muschietti and Mangold) are journeymen directors at best and have done nothing that particularly interest me. Mangold's the only one that stands out, but Indiana Jones was a creative failure and the last film of his that I wholeheartedly enjoyed was 3:10 to Yuma. I'm not a Gunn fan, so Superman would have to be the best movie he's ever made (by a large margin) for it to truly wow me. Right now I'm only interested because he's been saying all of the right things so far and the cast is pretty good. If the DCU only ends up being on-par with his Guardians films then count me out.

9/10 times you are gonna get journeymen for everything if you're developing movies. There's only a handful of high profile """auteur directors"""" and most of them are already busy. Like I said even if this wasn't a connected universe the likelihood of getting Greta Gerwig or whatever for this would be non existent because of Narnia. This isn't unique to Marvel or DC either.

 

[Elayis]

If Gunn isn't able to convince Scorsese to do a DC movie and let him make it 3.5 hours long then Gunn is a total failure in my book.

9/10 times you are gonna get journeymen for everything if you're developing movies. There's only a handful of high profile """auteur directors"""" and most of them are already busy. Like I said even if this wasn't a connected universe the likelihood of getting Greta Gerwig or whatever for this would be non existent because of Narnia. This isn't unique to Marvel or DC either.

That's not what I'm saying. I'd be perfectly happy with films that were on the level of Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy or the first 2 X-Men films (and First Class). It doesn't need to be high art, but the filmmakers do need to have a unique vision that has something to say. I've been steadily losing interest in superheroes since 2016, having only seen 3 of the last 11 MCU films in theaters (before 2019 I'd only missed 2), and the last DC film I saw in theaters was the first Aquaman. I'd much prefer a return to the pre-MCU days, where filmmakers were allowed to really swing for the fences. Yes, there were more misses than hits, but you had filmmakers like Ang Lee, Christopher Nolan and Guillermo del Toro doing their own thing. Feige's corporate model is turning away all of the interesting voices because they have no room to breathe and express themselves. If Gillespie and Muschietti are the best Gunn can do it speaks volumes about the kind of control he's looking to exert (a lot) and the quality of films we can expect (not high).

 

[SwordOfMorning]

It's purely a taste thing but overall it just isn't interesting to me seeing these properties adapted by randos hired to shoot pre-existing scripts. There's some properties that I don't mind that with, I don't expect Bond to ever be purely filmmaker driven for example, but at this point we're so deep into decades of the superhero genre primarily being handled that way that I'd rather have far fewer of them but have them made more consistently on your (to use current examples from the same studio) Barbie/Dune/The Batman/Joker model. Or The Dark Knight and Raimi Spider-Man if we're talking past CBMs.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

That's not what I'm saying. I'd be perfectly happy with films that were on the level of Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy or the first 2 X-Men films (and First Class). It doesn't need to be high art, but the filmmakers do need to have a unique vision that has something to say. I've been steadily losing interest in superheroes since 2016, having only seen 3 of the last 11 MCU films in theaters (before 2019 I'd only missed 2), and the last DC film I saw in theaters was the first Aquaman. I'd much prefer a return to the pre-MCU days, where filmmakers were allowed to really swing for the fences. Yes, there were more misses than hits, but you had filmmakers like Ang Lee, Christopher Nolan and Guillermo del Toro doing their own thing. Feige's corporate model is turning away all of the interesting voices because they have no room to breathe and express themselves. If Gillespie and Muschietti are the best Gunn can do it speaks volumes about the kind of control he's looking to exert (a lot) and the quality of films we can expect (not high).

Yeah, I don't think Muschietti winds up making Brave & The Bold but the fact two of the three non-Gunn hires are mediocre to bad directors who I sense were chosen because they can work in a Gunn adjacent style doesn't fill me with confidence. Before Invader gets on my case, just want to re-iterate I know some people think Muschietti's hiring was a conspiracy lol. I don't think Gunn is going to be some nutjob control freak and I suspect if the universe is a success there will be more movies that don't adhere to the house style/status quo than we got at Marvel but early days though it may be it is already giving that "This is a TV show where the showrunner is hiring journeymen to direct episodes" energy.

Although Gunn and Mangold are awesome so, hey, 50/50 on wins and losses I guess.

 

[Invader Joker]

That's not what I'm saying. I'd be perfectly happy with films that were on the level of Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy or the first 2 X-Men films (and First Class). It doesn't need to be high art, but the filmmakers do need to have a unique vision that has something to say. I've been steadily losing interest in superheroes since 2016, having only seen 3 of the last 11 MCU films in theaters (before 2019 I'd only missed 2), and the last DC film I saw in theaters was the first Aquaman. I'd much prefer a return to the pre-MCU days, where filmmakers were allowed to really swing for the fences. Yes, there were more misses than hits, but you had filmmakers like Ang Lee, Christopher Nolan and Guillermo del Toro doing their own thing. Feige's corporate model is turning away all of the interesting voices because they have no room to breathe and express themselves. If Gillespie and Muschietti are the best Gunn can do it speaks volumes about the kind of control he's looking to exert (a lot) and the quality of films we can expect (not high).

If Gunn wanted to micromanage this movie he'd have done the classic MCU route of hiring an indie filmmaker he can manhandle as he pleases. That's not what he's doing. Gillespie is the exact type of filmmaker you don't have to control because he's not gonna do anything a studio would hate even with creative freedom.

Yeah, I don't think Muschietti winds up making Brave & The Bold but the fact two of the three non-Gunn hires are mediocre to bad directors who I sense were chosen because they can work in a Gunn adjacent style doesn't fill me with confidence. Before Invader gets on my case, just want to re-iterate I know some people think Muschietti's hiring was a conspiracy lol. I don't think Gunn is going to be some nutjob control freak and I suspect if the universe is a success there will be more movies that don't adhere to the house style/status quo than we got at Marvel but early days though it may be it is already giving that "This is a TV show where the showrunner is hiring journeymen to direct episodes" energy.

Although Gunn and Mangold are awesome so, hey, 50/50 on wins and losses I guess.

I think the fact of the matter is that it's way easier said than done saying "Get a Villenueve/Gerwig/Reeves". In an ideal reality I'm sure that Gunn would have one of those types doing Supergirl. But the reality is you are simply not gonna get that for every single character and every single movie. It isn't unique to DC either. I'm sure every studio would rather have those types for a bunch of scripts they get, but it's just not feasible, and if you wait around waiting for auteurs all the time you're most likely not gonna get literally anything done that isn't Batman related or something.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

If Gunn wanted to micromanage this movie he'd have done the classic MCU route of hiring an indie filmmaker he can manhandle as he pleases. That's not what he's doing. Gillespie is the exact type of filmmaker you don't have to control because he's not gonna do anything a studio would hate even with creative freedom.


I think the fact of the matter is that it's way easier said than done saying "Get a Villenueve/Gerwig/Reeves". In an ideal reality I'm sure that Gunn would have one of those types doing Supergirl. But the reality is you are simply not gonna get that for every single character and every single movie. It isn't unique to DC either. I'm sure every studio would rather have those types for a bunch of scripts they get, but it's just not feasible, and if you wait around waiting for auteurs all the time you're most likely not gonna get literally anything done that isn't Batman related or something.

Oh, don't get me wrong: I am not saying it is easy. Obviously I am perfectly cognizant of the realities of franchise filmmaking and the industry. I've followed it for years and years because it is such an interesting, messy process. I don't actually expect them to not make these movies unless they're in a style that appeals to me, however from a creative perspective and from the selfish fan perspective that we all also hold I'd rather the genre just go away except for those big, special exceptions. Further DC superhero movies/TV shows aren't something I need, so I'd rather if they happen it is something that feels like it has a real reason to beyond "Well, we think we can maybe finally compete with the MCU this time".

To me this movie feels like it could have been something special. Not every director I think would have been a good fit for it is some insane A List auteur but I truly do not think Gillespie is capable of doing more than an Okay job.

Out of curiosity Invader because you and I are mostly both massively grumpy on here I actually kinda don't know what CBMs you actually like lol, what are your favourites?

 

[emielaen]

It seems logical that Gunn's approach will largely mirror Feige's after his time spent in the Marvel machine, and Zazlav seems to be a more hands-on studio head given the losses DC has incurred recently. Time will tell, of course, and I'd be thrilled to be wrong, but so far the announced filmmakers (Gunn, Gillespie, Muschietti and Mangold) are journeymen directors at best and have done nothing that particularly interest me. Mangold's the only one that stands out, but Indiana Jones was a creative failure and the last film of his that I wholeheartedly enjoyed was 3:10 to Yuma. I'm not a Gunn fan, so Superman would have to be the best movie he's ever made (by a large margin) for it to truly wow me. Right now I'm only interested because he's been saying all of the right things so far and the cast is pretty good. If the DCU only ends up being on-par with his Guardians films then count me out.

Is that logical though? Just bc he worked there? Gunn and Feige aren’t cut from the same cloth as creatives. Feige isn’t a writer or director so that already sets the approach apart. I don’t think Fiege has ever even proclaimed the things Gunn has as far as scripts and directors goes. He’s said the right things and now he has to execute. But chalking it all up to he’s just doing what they did when they haven’t done anything but hire people just feels silly and superficial to me.

Gillespie made I, Tonya and Lars and the Real Girl. Not exactly standard, everyday flicks by some guy. Both he and Mangold have interesting voices. Muschietti is another story and I don’t see him staying on. But I’m also not expecting truly out there, bold, “unique” film festival voices to be involved in this rn. I was expecting quirky yet competent and known voices like the ones we’ve gotten. The hires are fine. I’m not blown away but they’re fine. Directors getting hired to direct scripts that already exist isn’t new or inherently uncreative. Only one of them is doing that as of now anyway. It doesn’t mean they won’t get to inject their voice into it. But you not liking their work can’t be controlled. That’s not really a them problem.

I was never expecting an Arimpour or Jusu or Ducournau or Triet to be attached to this and idk why anyone else would. Idk if they’d want it, for one. But also, that would be more in line w Feige, like Invader said, to hire an indie darling w one $5M movie under their belt and toss $200M at em so that their bold creative voice can be stifled and controlled by all the pressures of a big, ****ty production where they map out pre-viz and action before they even hire you.

 

[Elayis]

Is that logical though? Just bc he worked there? Gunn and Feige aren’t cut from the same cloth as creatives. Feige isn’t a writer or director so that already sets the approach apart. I don’t think Fiege has ever even proclaimed the things Gunn has as far as scripts and directors goes. He’s said the right things and now he has to execute. But chalking it all up to he’s just doing what they did when they haven’t done anything but hire people just feels silly and superficial to me.

Gillespie made I, Tonya and Lars and the Real Girl. Not exactly standard, everyday flicks by some guy. Both he and Mangold have interesting voices. Muschietti is another story and I don’t see him staying on. But I’m also not expecting truly out there, bold, “unique” film festival voices to be involved in this rn. I was expecting quirky yet competent and known voices like the ones we’ve gotten. The hires are fine. I’m not blown away but they’re fine. Directors getting hired to direct scripts that already exist isn’t new or inherently uncreative. Only one of them is doing that as of now anyway. It doesn’t mean they won’t get to inject their voice into it. But you not liking their work can’t be controlled. That’s not really a them problem.

I was never expecting an Arimpour or Jusu or Ducournau or Triet to be attached to this and idk why anyone else would. Idk if they’d want it, for one. But also, that would be more in line w Feige, like Invader said, to hire an indie darling w one $5M movie under their belt and toss $200M at em so that their bold creative voice can be stifled and controlled by all the pressures of a big, ****ty production where they map out pre-viz and action before they even hire you.

I'm not writing off the DCU just yet, these are just my initial gut reactions at the hirings so far. Right now it sounds like every other expanded universe that announces six movies before the first one's even come out. I understand that's the nature of franchise filmmaking right now, but Gunn hasn't done anything yet to truly set the DCU apart from stuff like Dark Universe. I love blockbuster filmmaking when it's at its best, but without unique voices like Nolan, Villeneuve or Reeves I have no interest in milquetoast VFX-heavy noise.

I'll at least see Superman in theaters, and possibly Supergirl if it comes next. Beyond that there's no guarantee any of the others even get made.

 

[emielaen]

I have no interest in milquetoast VFX-heavy noise.

My only point is that we don’t know if this is what’s gonna be presented to us.

I’d also say Gunn is indeed a unique voice in blockbuster filmmaking. But I get your point. I’m not granting the DCU a success or worth anyone’s time. I’m just waiting to see what it actually is first lol

And if you’re talking films, possibly. But they may also have 2 shows in post-pro by this winter. Lanterns & Booster Gold hit production weekly for 2025 as well, so who knows.

 

[Invader Joker]

Oh, don't get me wrong: I am not saying it is easy. Obviously I am perfectly cognizant of the realities of franchise filmmaking and the industry. I've followed it for years and years because it is such an interesting, messy process. I don't actually expect them to not make these movies unless they're in a style that appeals to me, however from a creative perspective and from the selfish fan perspective that we all also hold I'd rather the genre just go away except for those big, special exceptions. Further DC superhero movies/TV shows aren't something I need, so I'd rather if they happen it is something that feels like it has a real reason to beyond "Well, we think we can maybe finally compete with the MCU this time".

To me this movie feels like it could have been something special. Not every director I think would have been a good fit for it is some insane A List auteur but I truly do not think Gillespie is capable of doing more than an Okay job.

Out of curiosity Invader because you and I are mostly both massively grumpy on here I actually kinda don't know what CBMs you actually like lol, what are your favourites?

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Batman. As for non-Batman ones, then The Suicide Squad, Spider-Man 2002, Across the Spider-Verse. Aas far as the MCU goes, Iron Man 1, Avengers, Winter Soldier, Guardians 1 and 2 (Would need to rewatch 3 to see how it ranks), Civil War, Homecoming and Infinity War. Haven't seen any of the Fox X-Men or Donner's Superman.

 

[Pennywise]

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Cruella is such a deeply awful and stupid movie that it in and of itself serves as a great counter argument to Gillespie being a good or safe choice for this.

 

[#root]

Well… I never would’ve thought of him for sure. I, Tonya was pretty good, Fright Night was okish but Cruella was pretty darn bad imo. Haven’t seen anything else from him. This is a weird choice in that it doesn’t really make me excited but I still think he can make a good movie .

 

[Dr.]

I’ve never seen Cruella. But it earned middling-to-good reviews. And even critics who didn’t like it praised its visuals — which is a promising sign for an adaptation of Woman of Tomorrow.

At a bare minimum, the director should be able to compose solid action set pieces and be familiar with sfx. OTOH, Patty Jenkins (with a limited filmography) did pretty well with action-y Wonder Woman. If Gunn really wanted a female director, it seems like there were options available...

 

[Tg11]

A movie 🎬 I'm definitely waiting for and considering Supergirl has only had one adaptation on screen all the way back in 1983...I just hope that this new version when it comes out, it spawns off into its own franchise with sequels

 

[TheScarecrow]

I’ve never seen Cruella. But it earned middling-to-good reviews. And even critics who didn’t like it praised its visuals — which is a promising sign for an adaptation of Woman of Tomorrow.

At a bare minimum, the director should be able to compose solid action set pieces and be familiar with sfx. OTOH, Patty Jenkins (with a limited filmography) did pretty well with action-y Wonder Woman. If Gunn really wanted a female director, it seems like there were options available...

I think WW1984 stands as a testament that it was Snyder’s team and not Patty Jenkins that was responsible for WW’s action sequences…and even then I have always thought they looked “rubbery”…