‘Supergirl’ Did the One Thing Superhero Movies Need to Do to Survive — and Did It Well

[Editor’s note: The following article contains spoilers for “Supergirl.”]

Inevitably, when I think about the term “cinematic universe” as it applies to our ongoing glut of superhero stories — both of the Marvel and the DC varieties — there are two things that immediately jump to mind, which also happen to be intrinsically linked to each other. There’s the universe itself, the saving of which has, for so often and so long, been at the heart of most of our superhero stories. And there’s the exhaustion that comes with that.

When everything is at stake — like, again, an entire universe, the kind that holds all our cinematic superhero friends and foes and can be eradicated in a blink (or a snap) — it’s hard to feel that anything is at stake. Oh, no, the universe is going to be destroyed? Again? How ever will they rectify that? Well, they’re going to, because without a universe, there’s no cinematic universe.

It’s a problem that’s most notably plagued the bloated MCU, which has relegated most of its smaller-scale stories to television, only to then rope them into the wider cinematic universe when it’s time to a) make a movie, which b) has to have the entire fate of the world rest on its (approximately two-hour-wide) shoulders. If you’re wanting a contained story about your favorite superhero, yes, you might get a TV series that satisfies that, but it will never truly stand alone. It will always have to tie back into a bigger story. And that bigger story has, for so long, been about nothing less than the possible destruction of everything.

When I think about the exhaustion that comes with that, I tend to think about way back in 2018, when “Avengers: Infinity War” was bound for theaters, promising a gobsmacking showdown between the majority of the MCU’s biggest names and the evil Thanos (who, of course, was hellbent on destroying not just our universe, but half of all universes). Talk about stakes! When our bleary-eyed David Ehrlich alighted for a 31-hour marathon of all the previous MCU films, the whole thing seemed insane and unwell and extremely bad for mental and physical health, but it was at least building to something big.

‘Avengers: Endgame’©Walt Disney Co./courtesy Everett / Everett Collection

It was, of course, reversed just one year later, with “Avengers: Endgame.” And yet, the universe remains the primary stakes of the MCU (adding the Multiverse twist to the whole endeavor makes it feel both smaller and larger, but it’s still the same old, ahem, endgame). My fatigue over the current array of contemporary superhero films where the only thing at stake is everything is not unique to me. It’s bad for storytelling, boring for audiences, and unsustainable for a major portion of the box office that’s still struggling to thrive.

Which is all a tremendously long way of saying: “Supergirl” bucked the save-the-universe trend, did it very well, and is still beset by claims that Craig Gillespie’s first DC outing is “formulaic” (often said negatively, but leave it to Hideo Kojima to astutely explain why that’s a good thing) or “boring.” The film‘s apparent “failure” will likely inspire endless notes on lessons that DC brass should learn, and most of them will probably try to knock its small-scale, personal adventure. That’s a shame, and is the absolute worst “lesson” to come from the film’s opening weekend performance and critical appraisal.

Also, and I’m just putting this here because it’s been stewing in my head for days: If the small-scale story about the female superhero that is concerned with things like the evils of sex trafficking, the pervasiveness of genocidal violence, and the need to care for creatures less empowered than us is the one you’re knocking as the end of superhero movies as we know it, you should really think harder about your position. (Plus, the action is actually good!)

Gillespie’s film, written by Ana Nogueira and based on “Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow” by Tom King and Bilquis Evely, shrinks down the superhero story to a minimum, and to great personal impact. Also, as Gillespie himself told us, he was not beholden to matching the exact tone of “Superman.” How refreshing that a filmmaker was not only allowed to do that, but encouraged as such.

As I noted in my review, the film’s smaller-scale feel is a good thing. This is a compact story that helps us get to know Kara Zor-El (the charming Milly Alcock), what matters to her, and how she lives her life. I’m not entirely sure what else people would like to see from a standalone movie introducing a new character to the reworked DC world.

‘Supergirl’Courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures

As I wrote last week, “What makes ‘Supergirl’ stand out — and what might, unfortunately, alienate fans looking for more of the same — is its interest in staying small while asking some very big questions indeed.[The] adventure is rarely fun, often taking [its stars] to the darkest edges of the universe and its many inhabitants. The universe, for once, is not at stake here, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t real stakes. Alcock, tasked with playing a character that might strike some as ‘unlikable,’ instead finds both the very human dimension and the out-of-this-world charisma necessary to make Kara worth rooting for.”

The film is in no way perfect (even I gave it just a B rating), but it’s the kind of increasingly rare entry into a genre that has grown way too narrow, way too formulaic (very much in the negative sense), and way too averse to taking risks. The superhero genre is not going anywhere (Marvel has three new films coming up, including a pair of “Avengers” films we’re just guessing are about the fate of the entire universe, again), but its whiz-bang success is no longer guaranteed.

This time, it’s the pictures that need to get smaller. That’s the real tomorrow.

“Supergirl” is now in theaters.