Supergirl is stealing Brainiac from Superman???

[Agent Z]

Well technically it was cancelled until moved to CW and who was in episode one of season 2 on CW? I'll give you a hint he wore glasses.

Irrelevant to my point. Yes Superman showed up in season 2. His absence in season 1 did not affect people's enjoyment of the show.

[stargazer01]

Irrelevant to my point. Yes Superman showed up in season 2. His absence in season 1 did not affect people's enjoyment of the show.

Your point is irrelevant because Superman was acknowledged in the show from the start of season 1. He wasn't ignored. He was part of her universe in some form.

[Flashback]

Your point is irrelevant because Superman was acknowledged in the show from the start of season 1. He wasn't ignored. He was part of her universe in some form.

I think you jumped the gun and misconstrued what Agent Z said.

[Jokerz79]

Irrelevant to my point. Yes Superman showed up in season 2. His absence in season 1 did not affect people's enjoyment of the show.

Maybe not enjoyment but viability given it was cancelled and when it got it's reprieve they knew to bring in the big gun.

[SiegePerilous02]

From the rumors, the movie is set in the past so I think she's the one who gets to earth first instead of Kal-el, so the emotional payoff is not her cousin helping her acclimating to her new home, but her lost in this new world and her finally finding her place/purpose within it.

Which is like Dick Grayson having a history as Robin before Bruce is even orphaned. Its stupid.

He lost the status of first superhero to the JSA in the comics. Can he not even be the first Super in his own damn franchise in a big mainstream production? On top of the half assed "trilogy" we already got, this is just another middle finger because they don't want to use him. Kara doesn't even require that kind of elevation to work. Its for her benefit that she doesn't even need and messes up his story. Screw that noise.

[JAK]

"DC and WB owns all the characters and can use them how they see fit."

fans wanting to see Brainiac in a superman movie doesn't mean anything to them.

Yep - but that kind of thinking got them exactly where they are now: in the gutter with no short-term means of escape. Their Superman franchise is dead for the moment, and they're scrambling for ideas (and, if the rumors are even just thoughts thrown around at the moment) they're *again* learning the wrong lessons from their mistakes.

Guess it depends on how big that portion is, compared to the general audience.

And while so far its just speculation, that Brainiac will be the main antagonist for the Supergirl script (speculation), it doesn't make sense for the studio to scrap the idea because some fans will be upset.

The people who are angry about this are a very insignificant portion of the audience.

I think you're overestimating the power of hardcore fans. The MCU has done a number of things that have pissed off hardcore fans yet is still a franchise juggernaut. Even the Wonder Woman movie, the most liked of the DCEU films, still made the divisive decision to use her New 52 demigod origin. And as much as I personally disliked that decision (which did not stop me from liking the movie btw) it didn't affect the film's reception to the general audience.

Studios will choose casuals over hardcore fans every single time. If they can please both (which is nigh impossible), great, but the former will be of more priority.

They can't afford to be pissing anybody off, right now - no matter how "insignificant" they may seem. They have the opposite of good will built, and they have to dig themselves out of that hole before they do anything. WW2, Aquaman, and Shazam may/will help, but Superman and Batman are currently tainted properties in live action. I knew this would happen eventually, all the signs were there - it just happened even faster than *I* predicted it would.

[Adekis]

I can see the appeal of giving Brainiac to Supergirl, actually. If you've seen Superman Unbound, you can see that to Kara, Brainiac is the scariest thing in the universe, maybe even scarier than the end of the world. That's powerful, especially when Superman's reaction is way more standard. And you couldn't really get away with Superman acting that like, you know? But Supergirl can.

I mean, all of which said, having a Supergirl movie without Superman in it still strikes me as fundamentally stupid. Well, okay, not stupid. From a marketing perspective it probably makes loads of sense! Superman hasn't been in a non-controversial, straightforwardly popular movie since 1978, and Supergirl is hugely, massively popular on TV! What I really mean is that from an aesthetic, artistic, and yeah, emotional standpoint, it would be such a soul-crushing disappointment to me not to have Superman in a Supergirl movie that I have absolutely no interest in a perspective which would treat his exclusion as a good idea.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yep - but that kind of thinking got them exactly where they are now: in the gutter with no short-term means of escape. Their Superman franchise is dead for the moment, and they're scrambling for ideas (and, if the rumors are even just thoughts thrown around at the moment) they're *again* learning the wrong lessons from their mistakes.

Yes, seeing what they've seen fit to do with these characters at times doesn't instill much confidence. Yeah they can do whatever they want, doesn't mean we need to be happy about it or think they are the best people who could be in charge. Unfortunately for us, they are.

They can't afford to be pissing anybody off, right now - no matter how "insignificant" they may seem. They have the opposite of good will built, and they have to dig themselves out of that hole before they do anything. WW2, Aquaman, and Shazam may/will help, but Superman and Batman are currently tainted properties in live action. I knew this would happen eventually, all the signs were there - it just happened even faster than *I* predicted it would.

Creating an accessible movie that is appealing to as wide an audience as possible is what they should be doing. Catering only to the fanbase is always a bad idea, but so is not considering them at all. They need good will from EVERYBODY. There is any number of ways they could go about doing this, even if they want to do a stand alone Supergirl film without Superman present for the time being, but they seem to be going for all the weird choices that just add salt to the already festering DCEU wound for the Superman brand.

I can see the appeal of giving Brainiac to Supergirl, actually. If you've seen Superman Unbound, you can see that to Kara, Brainiac is the scariest thing in the universe, maybe even scarier than the end of the world. That's powerful, especially when Superman's reaction is way more standard. And you couldn't really get away with Superman acting that like, you know? But Supergirl can.

This is why I'd ideally like them to be confronting Brainiac together. Superman encountering Brainiac while also meeting Kara and the two heroes uniting is no-brainer plot for a Superman movie.

I mean, all of which said, having a Supergirl movie without Superman in it still strikes me as fundamentally stupid. Well, okay, not stupid. From a marketing perspective it probably makes loads of sense! Superman hasn't been in a non-controversial, straightforwardly popular movie since 1978, and Supergirl is hugely, massively popular on TV! What I really mean is that from an aesthetic, artistic, and yeah, emotional standpoint, it would be such a soul-crushing disappointment to me not to have Superman in a Supergirl movie that I have absolutely no interest in a perspective which would treat his exclusion as a good idea.

Nailed it. i think from a marketing perspective giving Superman (yet another) bit of a rest could be a good idea and focusing on Kara in the meantime makes sense. It's a problem of their own making though, and supposedly making Kara the first Super on Earth taking his title away for no reason just shows their apathy towards the character. Just have him be off-planet during her first adventure or something, just don't make the reasons as pathetically obvious as her first film.

[Flashback]

They can't afford to be pissing anybody off, right now - no matter how "insignificant" they may seem. They have the opposite of good will built, and they have to dig themselves out of that hole before they do anything. WW2, Aquaman, and Shazam may/will help, but Superman and Batman are currently tainted properties in live action. I knew this would happen eventually, all the signs were there - it just happened even faster than *I* predicted it would.

And that's the point, WB knows that both they're heroes are currently tainted and so their shifting their focus on the other heroes in the franchise and or making out-of continuity moives to give the big two time to wash the stink off them and see what to do with them.

[stargazer01]

I can see the appeal of giving Brainiac to Supergirl, actually. If you've seen Superman Unbound, you can see that to Kara, Brainiac is the scariest thing in the universe, maybe even scarier than the end of the world. That's powerful, especially when Superman's reaction is way more standard. And you couldn't really get away with Superman acting that like, you know? But Supergirl can.

I mean, all of which said, having a Supergirl movie without Superman in it still strikes me as fundamentally stupid. Well, okay, not stupid. From a marketing perspective it probably makes loads of sense! Superman hasn't been in a non-controversial, straightforwardly popular movie since 1978, and Supergirl is hugely, massively popular on TV! What I really mean is that from an aesthetic, artistic, and yeah, emotional standpoint, it would be such a soul-crushing disappointment to me not to have Superman in a Supergirl movie that I have absolutely no interest in a perspective which would treat his exclusion as a good idea.

I wouldn't call Supergirl massively popular on TV. Her show was cancelled on CBS due to poor ratings after one season, and on the CW is rating no higher than .5 w/ less than 2 million viewers. The only time she got over 1. rating was in the Season 2 premiere when Superman appeared.

Smallville was massive with much better ratings for years. I call a massive show something like what the Big Bang Theory or Game of Thrones get in viewers. Supergirl is even lower than The Flash. She is doing fine/OK for the CW, tho.

[JAK]

Creating an accessible movie that is appealing to as wide an audience as possible is what they should be doing. Catering only to the fanbase is always a bad idea, but so is not considering them at all. They need good will from EVERYBODY. There is any number of ways they could go about doing this, even if they want to do a stand alone Supergirl film without Superman present for the time being, but they seem to be going for all the weird choices that just add salt to the already festering DCEU wound for the Superman brand.

The way I look at it is this: make something that at least most fans can get behind, change only what you really need to, and give the audience a good movie that puts forward what they love about the character while introducing them to things us nerds know but they don't. That's not that hard to do unless your name is WB, Fox, Sony, or Universal. lol

And that's the point, WB knows that both they're heroes are currently tainted and so their shifting their focus on the other heroes in the franchise and or making out-of continuity moives to give the big two time to wash the stink off them and see what to do with them.

I do understand that. It's the whole "they can do whatever they want and they don't care about you" that I was addressing as a mistake. Though, Supergirl isn't Wonder Woman. Diana was popular enough that people don't need much else - the main question on people's minds with Supergirl is "where's Superman and how does/does he fit into this?" Between that and the media bringing up "Snyder's failed universe" etc etc etc, I see that as creating as many problems as it solves (given that WB don't know what they're doing, that is).

However, something just occurred to me that's kinda brilliant. DC could actually make an offshoot-DCEU franchise with "Super Hero Girls". Now THAT would be a way to have a shared universe that's it's own thing, and people wouldn't ask as many questions with an ensemble cast like that. Imo, *that's* their answer.

[Agent Z]

Yep - but that kind of thinking got them exactly where they are now: in the gutter with no short-term means of escape. Their Superman franchise is dead for the moment, and they're scrambling for ideas (and, if the rumors are even just thoughts thrown around at the moment) they're *again* learning the wrong lessons from their mistakes.





They can't afford to be pissing anybody off, right now - no matter how "insignificant" they may seem. They have the opposite of good will built, and they have to dig themselves out of that hole before they do anything. WW2, Aquaman, and Shazam may/will help, but Superman and Batman are currently tainted properties in live action. I knew this would happen eventually, all the signs were there - it just happened even faster than *I* predicted it would.

There is no decision WB can make that wonÂ’t piss at least some people off. The fact that weÂ’re getting a Supergirl movie instead of a Superman sequel has already annoyed some people. WB canÂ’t make everyone happy.

[JAK]

There is no decision WB can make that wonÂ’t piss at least some people off. The fact that weÂ’re getting a Supergirl movie instead of a Superman sequel has already annoyed some people. WB canÂ’t make everyone happy.

Maybe, but that's not a good reason that they shouldn't be trying for something that fits more in with what the public connects with in the character. That seems to suggest that WB should just do whatever because it doesn't matter. Imo, that mindset (on their part) is what got them where they are now.