Studios & NYT blame audiences for not watching their movie sermons? (cinema network)

[Syne]

Did I hear a sudden about face?

[Magical Realist]

Did I hear a sudden about face?

Did you even read my post incel?

[Yazata]

Both men and women paid to see that movie.

I'm sure men and women and even kids paid to see Supergirl. Perhaps though not for the reason you think they went to see Wonder Woman. lol

Not nearly enough to make the movie profitable.

But if men did go to see the film, then doesn't that contradict this from the New York Times quote in the original post: "reflecting a resurgent misogyny among the core fan base, which is largely male"? That NYT author was trying to blame the film's failure on male misogyny.

Wonder Woman had a hugely charismatic star whose character lived up to the movie's name. She was a Greek-style goddess come to Earth among the mere mortals to do battle with a rogue Greek-style god. The movie was successful and made some $600 million globally. No misogyny to be seen. Men will turn out to watch female superheroes if they are really portrayed as super.

Supergirl had an unappealing teenage protagonist with an apparent bad attitude who just happened to have superpowers. It's bombing at the box office.

I just don't think that the way that this movie seems to have portrayed Supergirl was particularly appealing to more than a niche audience. It was a bad mistake on the studio's part and they are paying for it now.

[Magical Realist]

LOl Do you really think that men who won't go see a movie that has a lead albeit not scantily-clad female also won't go see a movie with a lead female who IS scantily-clad? I wouldn't for a minute! Misogynists typically hate women while also reducing them to mere sex objects. It's all part of their specific mental-illness package.

[Syne]

Did I hear a sudden about face?

Did you even read my post incel?

You mean the one where you said:

Probably has less to do with the standard maga/incel hatred for women in lead roles

Yeah, that sounds like it contradicts:

An entirely knee-jerk review bomb from what appear to two aging misogynistic incels.

[Magical Realist]

You mean the one where you said:

Nope..the one where I posted this:

Probably has less to do with the standard maga/incel hatred for women in lead roles and more to do with superhero movies in general. I know I'm exhausted by them. Maybe the masses are cinematically evolving as well.

Oh and look! Google AI backs me up!

"The popularity of superhero movies is currently experiencing a significant historical transition, characterized by a transition from absolute box office dominance to a period of "superhero fatigue" and softer commercial returns. While the genre remains a major fixture in global pop culture, the era where nearly every comic book adaptation was a guaranteed billion-dollar blockbuster has concluded."

Yeah, that sounds like it contradicts:
(Jun 23, 2026 05:29 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
An entirely knee-jerk review bomb from what appear to two aging misogynistic incels.

Nope..I merely pointed out that low box office revenue has less to do with misogynistic review-bombs and more with superhero fatigue--a fine distinction I really don't expect you to grasp.

[Syne]

Ah, more argument from ignorance.

[C C]

I've personally witnessed it now...

https://www.scivillage.com/thread-20772-post-86989.html

[Magical Realist]

Like any James Gunn related film it is half-comedy or tongue-in-cheek (whatever you want to call it). It's not political.

That's what I thought. There's a trend now in depicting superheroes as more human and unscrupulous figures. A sort of self-conscious deconstruction of the whole genre. If this ruins the wet-dreams of comic book-collecting incels, so be it. Maybe they should stick to comic books instead of looking towards the silver screen.

[Syne]

It's actually based on a run from the comics... because comic fans are (should've been) a large contingent of the target audience. It's based on Woman of Tomorrow, and the next Superman movie is called Man of Tomorrow.