As predicted by many (including yours truly), the corporate media, in the form of the disgraced, far-left New York Times, is blaming “misogyny” for Supergirl’s humiliating and well-deserved crash-landing at the box office.
Still, box office analysts on Sunday noted an uncomfortable truth: 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. Before its release, “Supergirl” became caught up in a now-familiar cycle of online abuse, with some fanboys attacking Milly Alcock’s casting and appearance. Warner Bros. executives said they were surprised by both the ferocity of the backlash and its reach, believing the culture had evolved past that sort of campaign.
A few rebuttals…
First off, the Times must pull a phony “past five years” metric out of its butt to back up its anti-science “misogyny” theory because eight years ago Wonder Woman (2017) grossed $400 million domestic; because a mere seven years ago Captain Marvel grossed $1 billion global; because a little over five years ago, all four Hunger Games movies, Atomic Blonde, Mad Max: Fury Road, and the Resident Evil franchise succeeded at the box office and starred female heroines.
Second, leftist movie critics cannot be smeared as toxic fanboys. Most of them were desperate to love Supergirl… and they didn’t.
Third, the people who went to see Supergirl are certainly not toxic fanboys, and they gave the movie a dreadful B- Cinemascore.
Finally, the Times makes it sound as though the “fanboys” started “attacking Milly Alcock” out of the blue, just because, for the lulz, because she’s a girl.
No.
All the way back in March, she started it. And after free Americans responded to her taunts and provocations, she doubled down by mocking “Christian Dads.” Then she declared her Supergirl character bisexual.
As the valedictorian of the Rachel Zegler School of Public Relations Class of 2026, Milly Alcock went out of her way to alienate, insult, and attack the Supergirl and superhero fanbase, which is mostly male.
She was also a dreadful casting choice. She’s too small to play a superhero, she has no charisma, no sex appeal, and has the body of a 14-year-old boy. Are we not allowed to point that out when sex appeal has been the bedrock of the movie business since about, oh, the very beginning of the movie business?
Then there’s the “superhero fatigue” canard, which Spider-Man Brand New Day will soon prove a lie with a massive opening and an overall run that will likely reach $1 billion global, if not more. You see, unlike Supergirl (and Star Wars and post-Endgame Marvel), the Spider-Man franchise delivers for its fans. Star Tom Holland doesn’t attack and insult his fans. This is not hard, Hollywood.
Retards.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.