And let's not act like this is some new twist thrown in by Gunn. Kara has been portrayed as the darker character of the two plenty in the comics for years, and for good reason. Clark has never experienced the level of trauma Kara has. Very few other DC heroes have, honestly.
It's the first time live-action Supergirl has been portrayed in this manner.
Ultimately, it's probably a good thing. If she was portrayed with Benoist-level cheesy dialogue, audiences would be throwing up.
I think this film will end up being a dark comedy.
Gunn has a great track record with female characters in this genre. Even traumatized characters, like Gamora and Nebula, can be incredibly likable and funny.
Maybe. But I’ll go out on a limb and predict that most Supergirl fans would not want to see Terrence Malick’s version of Supergirl.
In terms of directors who are “visual stylists”… Well, Guillermo del Toro and Ang Lee have actually made superhero movies before (and know vfx). And George Miller almost made a superhero movie.
Of course, there are several other candidates who could handle artsy visuals. But most of the obvious ones are probably too big, too auteur or too disinterested in the subject matter.
I'd love to see Slater appear. She was the first (and a perfect) Supergirl. She's worked a fair bit with WB/DC over the years. I'm sure she wouldn't take much persuading.
Rose Glass- My top choice. She has the edge and delicate pov to her filmmaking. I know a few who have seen her next flick and she is the real deal. Her first flick is bloody good as well.
Glass would be a great get. Saint Maud is pretty good. Lowery would be super dope.
As far as legacy cameos though, just let it be subtle if you're gonna do it. I don't love when the whole film stops for the actor to get some line off or whatever. Let it be in passing.
Movieweb.com seems like the type of site that would try to pull drama out of nothing. Their examples of "backlash" are also comically myopic and from people who don't get how casting works. One just calls Gunn a f-er too lol
Would anyone who’s read the book care to entertain questions I have about the “morality” and “moral lessons” it presents? I’m especially thinking of the climax and epilogue/coda of the story where the ideas of revenge, redemption and the ultimate fate of the villain are addressed. Basically: is the morality coherent? Or is moral ambiguity the point of the narrative?
Appropriately, I’ll put the specifics in spoiler tags. (And I guess responses — if any — will have to be likewise tagged. Sorry if that’s awkward.) Everyone else: don't click if you don't want to know plot details.
In the climax, Ruthye is on the verge of killing Krem — this being her driving goal from page 1. But she can’t bring herself to deliver the fatal blow. Not the most original of ethical dilemmas for a hero. But fair enough. Then Supergirl arrives and volunteers to perform the righteous execution in Ruthye’s stead. Whereupon, Ruthye talks her out of it (with a rather lengthy philosophical soliloquy). Essentially: killing is bad, revenge is empty, heroes must represent a moral ideal. Again, fair enough.
Time jump some decades (?) later. An elderly Ruthye and a young-looking Supergirl release Krem from the Phantom Zone — where he’s been imprisoned for his crimes for 300 years. (Presumably, some PZ “time dilation” has occurred; presumably, Ruthye and Supergirl haven’t aged 300 years.) Old and decrepit, Krem is grateful and wholeheartedly remorseful. Whereupon Ruthye strikes him down. Now, there’s debate and confusion as to whether she killed Krem or just conked him on the head. The artwork is certainly ambiguous on this point. And the “unreliable” narration is no help either. In any case, Ruthye and Supergirl abandon the prostrate Krem in a field.
Now, it’s explained that Supergirl would claim to have killed Krem — thereby shielding Ruthye from possible reprisals. But even though Krem is not actually dead (at least not yet?), as far as anyone knows, Supergirl slayed this evil villain. Which rather undercuts, in my view, a message of moral idealism. And what of the unreliable narration? Well, if we (as readers) are unable to discern between truth and fiction, any ethical lessons (it seems to me) are rendered vague and/or moot. I.e., It’s a somewhat academic exercise to agree or disagree with Ruthye and Supergirl’s moral choices if we don’t know whether those choices actually occurred.
...
So… I only read the book once. And it’s quite possible that I missed much of the artistic/ethical nuance and subtlety. But even if that’s the case (and getting back to the tread topic), is this nuance and subtlety translatable to a movie adaptation? I’m happy to be educated by those more expert on the WoT narrative. As of now, however, I’m… ambivalent.
Would anyone who’s read the book care to entertain questions I have about the “morality” and “moral lessons” it presents? I’m especially thinking of the climax and epilogue/coda of the story where the ideas of revenge, redemption and the ultimate fate of the villain are addressed. Basically: is the morality coherent? Or is moral ambiguity the point of the narrative?
Appropriately, I’ll put the specifics in spoiler tags. (And I guess responses — if any — will have to be likewise tagged. Sorry if that’s awkward.) Everyone else: don't click if you don't want to know plot details.
In the climax, Ruthye is on the verge of killing Krem — this being her driving goal from page 1. But she can’t bring herself to deliver the fatal blow. Not the most original of ethical dilemmas for a hero. But fair enough. Then Supergirl arrives and volunteers to perform the righteous execution in Ruthye’s stead. Whereupon, Ruthye talks her out of it (with a rather lengthy philosophical soliloquy). Essentially: killing is bad, revenge is empty, heroes must represent a moral ideal. Again, fair enough.
Time jump some decades (?) later. An elderly Ruthye and a young-looking Supergirl release Krem from the Phantom Zone — where he’s been imprisoned for his crimes for 300 years. (Presumably, some PZ “time dilation” has occurred; presumably, Ruthye and Supergirl haven’t aged 300 years.) Old and decrepit, Krem is grateful and wholeheartedly remorseful. Whereupon Ruthye strikes him down. Now, there’s debate and confusion as to whether she killed Krem or just conked him on the head. The artwork is certainly ambiguous on this point. And the “unreliable” narration is no help either. In any case, Ruthye and Supergirl abandon the prostrate Krem in a field.
Now, it’s explained that Supergirl would claim to have killed Krem — thereby shielding Ruthye from possible reprisals. But even though Krem is not actually dead (at least not yet?), as far as anyone knows, Supergirl slayed this evil villain. Which rather undercuts, in my view, a message of moral idealism. And what of the unreliable narration? Well, if we (as readers) are unable to discern between truth and fiction, any ethical lessons (it seems to me) are rendered vague and/or moot. I.e., It’s a somewhat academic exercise to agree or disagree with Ruthye and Supergirl’s moral choices if we don’t know whether those choices actually occurred.
...
So… I only read the book once. And it’s quite possible that I missed much of the artistic/ethical nuance and subtlety. But even if that’s the case (and getting back to the tread topic), is this nuance and subtlety translatable to a movie adaptation? I’m happy to be educated by those more expert on the WoT narrative. As of now, however, I’m… ambivalent.
She definitely doesn’t kill Krem, for the record. Just knocks his teeth out with her walking stick. It’s the least she could’ve done, frankly. He killed everyone she loved. There’s no “bygones” from something like that, penance or not. The moral to me is, “move on, come to terms, but never, ever, forget.” Which is how Kara lives her life. It’s about how survivors deal with their past trauma on a day to day basis.
She definitely doesn’t kill Krem, for the record. Just knocks his teeth out with her walking stick. It’s the least she could’ve done, frankly. He killed everyone she loved. There’s no “bygones” from something like that, penance or not. The moral to me is, “move on, come to terms, but never, ever, forget.” Which is how Kara lives her life. It’s about how survivors deal with their past trauma on a day to day basis.
With respect to Krem’s fate… I gather than King has “settled” the matter in a direct response to a fan’s question: Ruthye did not kill Krem. But while it’s nice to get the author’s intent, I maintain that the text (the artwork, the narration) is ambiguous on this crucial point. (And based on comments I’ve seen online, I’m not the only one to think so.) In any event, if ambiguity wasn’t intended, that’s something that can be addressed in the movie adaptation.
More generally… It seems to me that the moral/ethical messaging of the story relies extensively on lengthy passages of narration and dialogue. Arguably, that works within the graphic novel medium. But I’m wondering if this’ll translate well to an action/adventure movie context.
With respect to Krem’s fate… I gather than King has “settled” the matter in a direct response to a fan’s question: Ruthye did not kill Krem. But while it’s nice to get the author’s intent, I maintain that the text (the artwork, the narration) is ambiguous on this crucial point. (And based on comments I’ve seen online, I’m not the only one to think so.) In any event, if ambiguity wasn’t intended, that’s something that can be addressed in the movie adaptation.
More generally… It seems to me that the moral/ethical messaging of the story relies extensively on lengthy passages of narration and dialogue. Arguably, that works within the graphic novel medium. But I’m wondering if this’ll translate well to an action/adventure movie context.
Yes, King has clarified it for those who doubted, but the storytelling was in the art there. Evely showed Krem move on the ground in her artwork - very clearly he put his hand to his face after he was hit. It never read as ambiguous to me.
Just rewatched the animated movie, Legion of Super-Heroes. Meg Donnelly really did have a great delivery as Kara, but I wonder whether in a weird way that kinda counted against her. Gunn said he wants his live-action DCU actors to voice their animated tie-in adventures as well; maybe he wasn't over-keen on having a performer who'd already voiced the role in a different continuity.
Just rewatched the animated movie, Legion of Super-Heroes. Meg Donnelly really did have a great delivery as Kara, but I wonder whether in a weird way that kinda counted against her. Gunn said he wants his live-action DCU actors to voice their animated tie-in adventures as well; maybe he wasn't over-keen on having a performer who'd already voiced the role in a different continuity.
Well I just think the version of Kara she was playing in those movies was not at all the version from this story or the version intended for the DCU. So in that sense, yeah, I don't think her having played the character already was the leg up over Milly that fans acted like it was.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
