The Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow News and Discussion Thread

[Milk Tray Guy]

Once again I say, the director has already been hired.

Wonder who she is...

 

[emielaen]

Lol that question is so backhanded. It is very obvious that Alcock will be in Legacy. Some people really wanna paint this dude as some overlord, anti-creative.

 

[Sawyer]

Wonder who she is...

Gonna be Grace Randolph’s debut feature, I can feel it.

 

[Dr.]

From an older post:

...So yeah, "current" Kara is the one in the main part of the story, who was just off-planet trying to get drunk for her 21st birthday when she encounters this kid. She is already established as Supergirl for sure, but for how long she's been "on-the-job," I'm not sure. She does have an established history with Comet and Krypto, though.

Granted, in a purely structural sense, this frames and contextualizes the story’s intro. I.e., there needs to be some pretext as to why (a depowered) Supergirl finds herself on Ruthye’s world. And at first blush, Kara travelling to (an apparently random) red star planet so she can experience the effects of celebratory intoxication appears to satisfy this narrative requirement.

But the more I think about this, the more dubious it seems.

Indeed, I can imagine a few scenarios in which Supergirl is able to get more “safely” drunk or stoned back on Earth. (Kryptonite Kocaine? Red Sun Margaritas?) All fanciful, to be sure. But not nearly as implausible — and dangerous — as an interstellar voyage to a locale where she has no superpowers.

Now… there are ways, after a fashion, to “rationalize” this. 1.) In fact, the pretext doesn’t take up much narrative space. It’s a necessary but minor part of act one. And soon enough, the main plot is underway. So it’s possible that audiences won’t pay much attention to how weird the pretext is. Or, if they do notice, they’ll just ignore it or readily forgive its incongruity. 2. — and somewhat related to 1.) WoT is very — and unapologetically — Silver Age-y. So if the story includes such fantastical elements as Comet the Superhorse and a star made of kryptonite, then complaining about other details of logic or plausibility seems… gauche: it’s a failure to recognize and appreciate the story’s comic book antecedents and nostalgic milieu.

Well, maybe… But I still question whether general movie audiences will be as knowledgeable or as accommodating. Again, WoT will be an introduction to Supergirl. And by my reckoning (absent any key changes to the source material), it’s a plunge into the deep end of Silver Age “eccentricity.”

 

[Sawyer]

Into it.

 

[Sawyer]

Noticed that Kate Herron reposted Gunn’s post of that director group photo in her IG stories with the caption “Justice League.”

Could be nothing. But…

 

[flickchick85]

Noticed that Kate Herron reposted Gunn’s post of that director group photo in her IG stories with the caption “Justice League.”

Could be nothing. But…

I really suspect she’s already got this gig.

 

[Pennywise]

 

[OrbOfConfusion]

Says Zaslav. Perhaps he's right, but at this point, I'll wait to hear it from Gunn's mouth.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Says Zaslav. Perhaps he's right, but at this point, I'll wait to hear it from Gunn's mouth.

Exactly, I mean Zaslev wouldn't exactly admit 'The script for Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow has already been written - and it's crap!'

 

[Dr.]

Is this new news or fake/recycled old news? Back in November, Gunn had sung the praises of a draft screenplay by Ana Nogueira.

 

[LifesEnd]

Really does seem they have a director if castings happening soon. Hope so anyways.

 

[Babillygunn]

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.

Spoiler

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.

I know that I’m late on this and @flickchick85 has appropriately responded, but to add my 2 cents:

Spoiler

I also think that it is very clear that neither Ruthye nor Kara killed Krem and that he was just punched out at the end.
The story reflects a couple of important aspects of Kara. First, she respects Ruthye and her decisions and will not force her to act in any certain way. Ruthie’s decisions are hers to make and Kara will not force a morality upon her. Instead, she models the morality and gives her an ideal of self sacrificial decision-making to emulate. Kara doesn’t have to force Ruthye not to allow her trauma to turn her into a monster because Kara has shown her what a person who has endured trauma and came out clean and better on the other side looks like.

Second, Kara respects that Ruthye is a victim of trauma and she is unwilling to allow Ruthye to be further traumatized. That’s why, if Ruthye is indeed intent upon seeing Krem die, Kara would do the deed to save Ruthye the eventual regret. It’s also why she supports Ruthye when she basically says “sorry Krem, your deeds have caused immeasurable pain and I’m not going to let that off the hook.”
I’m not sure if Kara agrees with Ruthye’s response per se, but she obviously understands and stands by Ruthye.

 

[Lily Adler]

Now we know which symbol to use for Kara:

 

[Sawyer]

 

[Enriquespy]

Do we expect her to buff up or nahh?
Unlike WW, Supergirl is rarely ever drawn muscular.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Do we expect her to buff up or nahh?
Unlike WW, Supergirl is rarely ever drawn muscular.

I hope not. As you say, she's not Wonder Woman - or Power Girl. I'm sure she'll make sure she's 'firm' (for want of a better expression), but I don't want her bulky.

 

[Pennywise]

 

[SwordOfMorning]

I like some stuff he's directed but that choice suuuuucks. Especially given his blockbuster franchise work is... Cruella. I suspect he'll work well with Alcock and get a great performance out of her but this is a very embarrassing decision for what could be a great movie.

 

[Lily Adler]

 

[SwordOfMorning]

The DCU: Written by, directed by and starring wonder bread!

 

[Filmfreak]

Eh, I like I, Tonya but he's not even that great of a director to have someone like him on this project over a female one.

 

[SwordOfMorning]

He's just a generic hired gun choice. Not some total rando hack, has a bit of a "style" that fits in with what I'd imagine Gunn wants (wacky but still Serious) overall in the DCU but also not any kind of creative visionary who might want to exert too much control. So, basically just dull and uninspired.

 

[emielaen]

A solid choice if it goes through. Embarrassing and uninspired are stretches imo. There are better options out there, but I wouldn’t have some major problem w this like others.

Eh, I like I, Tonya but he's not even that great of a director to have someone like him on this project over a female one.

Just any female director though? What if they tapped Sam Taylor Johnson lol

 

[SwordOfMorning]

Sam Taylor Johnson is a better director than Craig Gillespie. Neither is great, but I'd happily take her.