Actress playing Supergirl continues to damage her reputation

According to John Nolte at Breitbart, the actress playing Supergirl in this summer's new live action adaptation (based on Tom King's writings, no less) is continuing to alienate the audience, going so far as to attack "Christian dads":

Anyway, after starting this fight back in March, Little Miss Entitled-Fake-Trailblazer is now responding to the criticism she desperately sought by ridiculing “Christian Dads.”

“I guess women know that this is just how it’s always been, unfortunately,” Alcock said of the criticism over her retarded comments back in March. “And it’s from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts. Or someone’s name and then ‘Dad of four, Christian,’ which is hilarious to me. But I mean, whose opinion do you really care about? If you’re pissing the right kind of people off, you’re doing OK.”

Man alive.

Okay, it’s not all her fault. She’s pretty young and was even younger when fame arrived a few years ago with HBO’s House of Dragon. Fame warps you, especially at that age, and especially in a Hollywood that no longer stops its young stars from imploding like this. Sure, Mickey Rooney was an unholy terror in real life, but his public persona was so expertly managed that he became the biggest movie star in the world for a few years.

There’s only one commodity that makes you a movie star, and that’s goodwill. Denzel Washington and Sandra Bullock are still major draws in their dotage. Why? Because we like them.

If Supergirl flops, and its insufferable star sure seems determined to make that happen, Hollywood’s going to call us sexist, aren’t they?

Alas, yes. Alcock's taking everything from bad to worse by repeating a mistake potentially dozens of performers are making - spouting divisive political rhetoric before the official release of the film in question. And what's additionally angering is how Otto Binder and Al Plastino's Silver Age creation, the Maid of Might, is once again being done an injustice, perhaps worse than what the 1984 Supergirl movie did, all for the sake of a divisive screenplay coupled with equally divisive politics, and its star goes so far as to insult religious and fathers.

Let's be perfectly clear. I am as big a fan of Supergirl as of Superman, but I'm not going to watch a film whose star goes galaxies out of her way to alienate more than half the audience, which has become a sad staple of quite a few would-be rising "stars" in over a decade. Besides, with a screenplay relying entirely on what a modern awful writer like Tom King concocted back in the comics only confirms the filmmakers weren't seeking to build a merit-based story. If the new film fails, I'm not going to feel one bit sorry. All I'm sorry about is how the past work of late veterans like Binder and Plastino was desecrated for the sake of only so much modern propaganda, now culminating in shoddy movies that don't do any favors for the creations either.

Update: World of Reel says the financial estimations for the film aren't good:

The question now is whether “Supergirl” can continue that momentum. However, forecasts from Box Office Theory currently predict a domestic debut between $47M and $65M, putting it somewhere between “The Marvels” territory and “Black Adam,” which opened to $67 domestically.

“Supergirl,” which opens June 26, 2026, is squeezed between several major family blockbusters, including “Toy Story 5,” “Minions & Monsters,” and Disney’s live-action “Moana.” However, the main issue surrounding the film is that the marketing campaign simply hasn’t generated much excitement. That softer buzz has fueled concerns that the movie could either emerge as a modest performer or become one of the summer’s bigger disappointments.

Notice how Superman is heavily featured in recent promotional material for “Supergirl,” despite the character reportedly only having a cameo role in the film — that’s Warner Bros. trying to play it safe.

I wonder how Dwayne Johnson feels about his Black Adam "vanity project" after at least a few years? Even at a PG-13 level, the whole approach was one of the most repellent a film of that sort could employ, and such a shoddy film is best forgotten.

Update 2: Breitbart's John Nolte has followed up:

Supergirl is the second title to arrive from the rebooted DC Studios, which is run by writer-director James Gunn. The first title was 2025’s Superman, and despite the desperate spin and a sequel already in production, Superman did not do all that well at the box office. A $619 million global take when the production and promotion budget easily exceeded $300 million is barely breaking even.

Additionally, James Gunn’s Superman took no real hold in our cultural imagination. It’s just kind of … there.

The next test for Gunn’s vision of the DC Studios Universe is Supergirl, and if it bombs, as is projected here, Gunn’s position overseeing this reboot of some of America’s most popular superheroes could end pretty quickly, especially when Paramount takes over the studio in the upcoming merger.

From where I sit, besides making a mediocre Superman movie, Gunn’s choices have also been bizarre. Later this year, Gunn’s company will release Clayface, a movie no one asked for. He also gave us two seasons of The Peacemaker before it disappeared without a trace. Next up is Lanterns, because the Green Lantern is so widely popular.

And now he’s turned Supergirl into a drunken strumpet and cast a mouthy harridan as his lead, who is already out alienating the fanbase (guys) by pre-blaming this potential flop on us male sexists who can’t deal with female heroes, even though Pam Grier and Alien’s Ripley character are now iconic and still embraced by men everywhere.

By Clayface, do they mean another Batman rogues gallery member? I'm not wasting money on yet another movie spotlighting a villain. Even the Flash's adversaries wouldn't a good example for a film focus. Seriously, I hope this whole obsession with flooding the market with superhero films galore will come to an end soon, because it's long become boring, and the sources the screenwriters draw from are some of the worst around. There's no need for them anymore.