Megabite

Clark genuinely cares about Krypto. He doesn't LIKE Krypto, but he's known Krypto since he was a puppy. This is a dog he begrudgingly cares about because that's family right there, and he's one of the only two living connections he has to Krypton, a home he never got to experience. Clark is truly distraught by Krypto's abduction. That's not a reaction where he's scared of what Kara will do - the way he acts in the Fortress and Lex's office is someone who's desperate to get something he cares about back from danger. He turns himself in to the government for that dog. On a meta level we can argue Kara wasn't ever mentioned until the end to keep the audience in the dark about Krypto being her dog, but in the narrative, it's pretty heavily implied that Kara is not the driving reason for Clark going through all of that for Krypto.

On a comedic level, though, I find it infinitely funnier that Clark doesn't have any fuckin' clue what lengths Kara is willing to go to. He sees the best in everyone, after all. I love the idea that he's instead thinking, "oh my gosh, she trusted me with her best friend in the whole universe. She's going to be so upset with me, and I can't betray her faith in me like this." Because let's be real, the worst thing he thinks will probably happen is Kara will stop talking to him... he's too hopeful to ever consider Kara might beat the ever living shit out of Lex and maybe even killing him. 😭

Idk, I just get this sense that Clark hasn't ever really been able to get to know Kara, and she's never let him try. I think she's shielding him from her anger because she sees him as too pure to deal with her trauma. I wouldn't be surprised if Clark knows she's rougher around the edges in battles but not much else. I think we'll see him be confronted by the lengths Kara is willing to go to in Man of Tomorrow in dealing with Lex and/or Brainiac. I just have this sense that they don't know each other. I think even Kara would be surprised by what Clark is willing to do.

And honestly, to me their fighting approaches aren't that different? As in, they'll both disrespect the shit out of whoever they're fighting. That windmill move Clark pulls on the Engineer is diabolical. It's a more tame version than what Kara does to Krem, but the Engineer hadn't even done anything that bad other than refuse the white flag when Clark offered it. He literally offers her the chance to stop fighting and purely because she refuses, he smacks her across the ground as a literal bludgeon. Clark and Kara are also very quick on their feet - we see this often through their respective movies. I think the only difference between them, really, is their fighting style, and how much their opponent is hurt by the end.

Throughout Kara's childhood, at least from the bit we can see, she's allowed to flourish into her authentic self. It's not that Clark can't, but she's surrounded by a community that fully embraces her. She's never expected to restrain herself because she didn't have powers in Argo. By the time Kara gets her powers, she's all over the place. In control, for sure, but she flaunts them, no matter whether she's wearing her suit or her regular clothes. When she has outbursts throughout her movie, never once does the narrative paint this as a bad thing. In fact, the movie makes a point to show us that it's perfectly healthy and acceptable. None of the characters ever comment on her anger or rage, not outside of Rutheye, and we actually see her anger used in the heroic moment when she bashes the absolute shit out of Krem. That's so fucking cool, man! Kara basically gets to experience the luxury men have when it comes to expressing anger and frustration. Men aren't demonized for it, and so fuck yea Supergirl 2026 said that we can be free to be angry and loud

Then we have Clark, who, for his own safety, had to learn how to be totally in control and suppress a part of himself. He's pretty self-restrained with his powers, and how he presents himself as Superman to the public. Even after the message is released, he makes a point to go to a secluded building so he can breathe and collect himself.The ONE time he has a public outburst, he's completely demonized for it... just like women have been for centuries.

It's such a nuanced, beautiful film, and there are so many things you can pull apart. I'm still analyzing it. It is THE best woman led movie I've ever seen. Like, I enjoyed Barbie, but for me it has nothing on Supergirl 2026. I don't even know what I'd consider close to as good as this movie when it comes to woman-led movies. I can think of games and books, but not movies.

It bothers me so much that people are disliking it because they're stuck on the Woman of Tomorrow comic, which I personally found painfully just fine. Maybe it's because I saw the movie first, but WoT didn't do anything for me. I actually low key really hated the ending and didn't connect with anything from start to finish. It immediately lost me when only the father was killed, who was nameless, and Rutheye stumbled across his body. Im sorry, what. The movie actually had me choking on tears when Krem murdered her family. I thought the comic was SO superficial compared to the movie. Maybe I'm weird, but the comic was just not nearly as good in my opinion. I took WoT off my shopping cart (I read it on DC Infinite), and I have the Supergirl steelbook case pre-ordered. I'm even buying it digitally tomorrow because I cannot wait until September. ALSO, Supergirl 2026 is not an adaption of WoT. It's inspired by the comic. Thank god, honestly. Idk why the comic just doesn't do it for me, but it makes me so sad that people are using it to shit on the movie. Like, no, please understand the movie used the comic as inspiration, it's NOT an adaption 😭 and yes, I'm so serious that I prefer the movie's ending, because people who say it's a bad change simply didn't sit down to understand what the message was... because it's a woman led movie. I'm doubling down on that.

I made a long post breaking down what I liked better about then movie and why I prefer it so much more. I did actually do a deep dive on this.

People actually spent time trying to understand Superman 2025 and did deep dives on every aspect of it. With Supergirl, I've at most seen people say things like, "it's okay but it's getting hated on because it's a woman-led movie," "it's not a perfect movie, but it's good," "Kara Zor-El, you deserve better," "why is Lobo in this," etc. I see the difference. Literally one is being subtle. And to be clear, I don't have an issue with saying she deserves better. She DOES. But my point is I want people to analyze the movie itself, and to break down its themes and little moments. I don't want to see any caveat attached to that.

I did see someone say they won't watch the Supergirl movie because Tom King was involved, and it has nothing to do with sexism. YUP, it ABSOLUTELY does. You're still being sexist because if you saw Superman 2025 in theaters, then you were okay with him having some involvement with that movie... because the lead was a man. And if you read the comic and positively talk about it while knowing Tom King had more involvement in that.... come the FUCK on, now. He had more say over the comic than he did with the movie, and in fact his name is way more closely tied with WoT. Like, he's credited as a writer for the comic, and he's not even a producer for Supergirl 2026. Be so fucking real with yourself right now. It doesn't have anything to do with Tom King. Not watching Supergirl 2026 and not liking it is completely steeped in sexism.

There is so much sexism surrounding Supergirl 2026 and I just... ugh. It deserves as much love as Superman 2025 and the only reason it's not is purely because it's a woman led movie. That's it. People are so hyper critical of it without actually engaging with the story. "Why is Lobo in this he's so useless." First of all, welcome to Lobo's entire existence. Every comic I've read with him in it, he never feels like he serves any purpose. I just read one where he showed up just to insult Superman and that for once Lobo was not going to pummel him. Then he fucked right off. But regardless, people are so stuck on being upset with him in the movie that they don't actually explore what purpose he serves, and he serves many. For example, you cannot put a man in Kara's role because everything inherently changes. When Lobo asks the bar owners where the Brigands are, they turn him away entirely. But Kara? They lure her and Rutheye in. They do that because they're both women. If Kara had been a man, they would've turned the main character away. Lobo literally shows us the inherent gender difference. That's just one example of the narrative purpose he serves, and I do want to make a post fleshing this specific point out more.

I will genuinely be annoyed if I see people say, "oh man this movie is so good, why didn't I go see this in theaters? :((" and I'm going to sit there knowing the exact reason why.

They said that because Clark arrived on Earth as a baby and never knew his planet's culture, he's more of an adopted kid. That's so wrong on so many levels. He wasn't born on Earth. He wasn't born in the United States of America. Just because his skin color is white doesn't erase the fact that he migrated to Earth. Of course he didn't make that decision, but nonetheless, it happened. Immigration LITERALLYYYYYYY means you were born in one place, and then moved to another, whether it was against your will or not, and no matter what your age was. He's an immigrant. That's SO not a debate.

And to say that he can fit in really well so he doesn't experience xenophobia because he's white is just so....... it's a huge misunderstanding of his identity. He's white PASSING. When he interacts with people as Clark Kent who don't know his secret, he literally puts on a persona of himself to assimilate into human culture. He WANTS to be human and in every way that matters he IS, but Clark Kent can't ever express his Kryptonian heritage to those who aren't aware of both identities. He acts a certain way so that no one suspects him of being an alien. He literally changes his voice for public Clark Kent. Is that not a direct allegory for immigrants trying to soften their native accents to seem like they belong? Superman is constantly othered. Not even always in a malicious way. It can be as simple as someone saying, "I didn't think you needed to eat." It's not intended to be harmful, but that simple statement is a person born on Earth furthering him from humanity. That's the literal definition of white passing. He doesn't get to be his full true self, because otherwise he'll no longer be seen as a white man, but as an alien.

If Clark EVER revealed he's Superman, he would literally struggle to land a job. He COULD, but let's be real, SO many people wouldn't consider hiring him. I'm sure Perry would want to let Clark keep his position, but it's more likely Perry's bosses would want to fire Clark. They've wanted to fire him for far less in some comics I've read. If anything, the government would look for ways to finally get him under their control, which brings me to my next point. His parents would be under major scrutiny because they forged documents to make him a citizen. They literally harbored an alien. WE know Ma and Pa were right to do it, but with the laws currently in place, that would probably get them thrown in jail. Anyone else Clark has been in contact with would be at risk for backlash, even those who didn't know his secret. While he may physically be safe, every other aspect of him is at risk, and it's why Daily Planet Clark Kent is different from Smallville Clark Kent. He's not a white man. He's white passing

Clark would no longer be treated like a regular person. There was a comic where Lois forced Clark to go into a diner as Superman to make a point, and everyone inside refused to treat him like a regular person. Clark tried to interact with them normally, but they only saw the symbol and the alien.

In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Tom Rhys Harries teased that Robert Pattinson visited the Clayface set, and while it could either mean: 1. Tom is just fucking with everyone and Robert never actually stepped foot on any set, or 2. Robert did visit, but as a guest and has no connection to Clayface....... I really hate that they'd tease this because they KNOW there are tons of fans who are hoping the merge happens 😭

BRUHHHH at this rate just fricken confirm Battinson is in the DCU, for the LOVE OF! 😭 like that wording tells me the merge is happening... stop gaslighting everyone and just give us Battinson in the DCU. 😭😭🙏🙏

I know Jorge says the point of the musical is to have the audience ask whether or not Odysseus is a monster for what he's done. I have a lot of respect for Jorge, but death to the author and all, because I just don't find that question interesting. It also has never made sense to me, and I feel like it falls apart based on lyrics within the musical. Odysseys calls himself a monster and willingly turns into one. Of course Odysseus is a monster for what he'd done to his crew by the events of Scylla. Like, I'm not even going to debate anyone in this. I remember, back before The Underground Saga came out, there were people who were dead set on the idea Odysseus didn't drop the infant, that the infant was spared. But Odysseus did drop the baby. That's a really fucked up thing to do, and it was so horrendous that people refused to believe it until "Monster confirmed it." Not only did the song confirm it, but Odysseus outright admits to himself he'll drop more of them for his own selfish gain, because he's okay with turning into a monster. So yea, he is a terrible person at times. To be VERY clear, I love Odysseus in EPIC, and I can also hold the very real truth that he is a deliberately bad person at times. So in my head I reject Jorge's question of, "do you think Odysseus is a monster? Or is he just a man?"

I don't have a counter question to propose, not really. If anything, I have Superman, specifically Absolute Superman, at the front of my mind. The premise of Absolute Superman is, "what happens when Kal-El is forced to live the worst possible life imaginable, where he does get to know his parents and Krypton, but he loses them in his escape to Earth? What if he gets to meet the Kents and embrace their kindness, only to have it ripped away from him by the system? What if he never gets to know a home, and never gets to feel like he belongs? Will he remain steadfast in his desire to be kind and compassionate, or will he succumb to callousness?" On almost every page the core of who Kal is, is relentlessly attacked and torn away at, and at every single step of the way he still chooses compassion and kindness. He refuses to be molded into the killer the people of Earth him to be.

I follow a video game streamer, Dr. Mick, who plays different games and breaks down very real psychological concepts in a way that's approachable for people who may not have access to that information. Something he talks about is how people will say something like, "I didn't have a choice," and he counters that by saying, "everything is a choice." Lets use EPIC as an example, specifically when Zeus tells Odysseus to end Prince Hector's infant son's life. A lot of people, I'm sure, would say, "Odysseus wasn't given a choice! He had to end the child's life to see Penelope and Telemachus!" But he did make a choice. He chose to obey Zeus' order, instead of defying it. He could have chosen to spare the infant, and risk his family's life. It's a shitty decision, but a decision nonetheless. Here's a more controversial one: Odysseus and Scylla. When I was on TikTok, people would get pissed off at me for saying Odysseus had the choice to not sacrifice his men. They were mad because they fully believed he had to in order to return home. No. He could have made the decision that he would not betray his men's trust, that he'd instead face Poseidon's wrath head on.

As a side note, Dr. Mick's play through of God of War Ragnarok is SO GOOD. I HIGHLY recommend it.

To me, EPIC is about the choices humans make in a world ruled by gods that do not value mortals, where they're only minor annoyances to do with as the gods pleased. Do you obey the gods, potentially betraying your own morals, or do you disobey them, and likely face punishment? Do you disobey them because you would rather not make the selfless (I used selfless intentionally) choice?

In the same vein, I also believe the gods are responsible for their own choices, and in fact, they have a greater responsibility. They are essentially all-powerful compared to humans. Eurylochus has gotten a lot of backlash from the fandom, and they blatantly ignore the fact that Aeolus' winions go out of their way to make Odysseus' crew believe the bag contains treasure. And you truly expect me to believe the crew is going to take Odysseus' word at face value, the same man who's INFAMOUS for being a snake and a liar? Really? I see the gods as parents overseeing a bunch of four year olds, and punishing the mortals in a way that's completely skewed. It's the same with Polyphemus. He's an adult cyclops. He is completely and utterly capable of making decisions, and I'd argue he's capable of realizing Odysseus and his men were completely ignorant in killing the sheep.

My point is that the gods are CONSTANTLY punishing mortals for, honestly, honest mistakes, at least when you compare them to the omniscient position of the gods. The gods will even go out of their way to trick mortals into disobeying their commands, just so they can punish mortals.

So mortals live in this world that is constantly battering at them, always a step away from fucking over their entire lives. The only thing mortals can control is how they respond in a world that is constantly attacking them. Odysseus, in a way, is in the same position as Kal-El, but unlike Kal-El, Odysseus chooses to become a monster. He literally tells us this. "I'll become the monster."

That's why, in my opinion, Jorge's question doesn't work as the premise, because Odysseus makes the deliberate choice to become a monster so he can return home. He will sacrifice his crew. He will choose himself over them when Zeus' demands him to make a decision. Zeus even uses that word, "choose." Because it is a choice.

I guess I solved my own problem of not having an alternate question the musical proposed. I'd argue instead of the question, "is Odysseus a monster, or just a man," I'd say that a better fitting question is, "what choices are you willing to make in a world that demands you to be something you aren't?" You could be a terrible person and the gods could demand you make a selfless choice. Will you obey them, or will you defy them? For Odysseus, he chose to become a monster, thus becoming what the gods had tried shaping him into.

Athena, I think, is a perfect example of this. She chose to stay steadfast in her godliness. Odysseus was tired of tricking people and killing senselessly, so he told the Cyclops his name, because I think that was Odysseus trying to be honorable, and to say, "fuck you," to Athena and her ways. He chose instead to try to follow the path of, "open arms." He tried, and then he abandoned it. Athena, by the time she approaches Telemachus, is now wonders whether or not that was the right thing to do. She's now recognizing her choices had an impact on what the events in Odysseus' life, and what he became. And I think she realizes that because Telemachus has had such a loving and supporting mother, he's been able to hold onto his light and goodness. Athena abandoned Odysseus' in his darkest time, and subjected him to suffering the horrors of immortal beings with absolutely no support. She's not responsible for his choices, but she did play a big part in it, because she'd decided her ego as a god is more important. During "God Games," when she begs Zeus to spare Odysseus, she doesn't use logic or anything like that. That's the moment she breaks the cycle, and pierces through Zeus' ego by simply begging him be kind to Odysseus. She doesn't offer anything in return. Just do it, because you can. You know what happens? Zeus lets him go.

I also want to bring up Hermes, someone who's in a greater position of power, because when he helped Odysseus, he never commands him on how to deal with Circe. He simply warns Odysseus to be wary, and wishes him luck. Because Odysseus listens to his own heart and instinct without trying to be something that's expected of him, Circe ends up helping Odysseus and freeing his men out of kindness and a hope he'll pass it forward. The next time he sees Hermes, Hermes once again offers advice without any expectations of how to handle the obstacle that will be in his way. Odysseus assumes he means Charybdis, and once again, Odysseus is left to deal with the situation without any expectations other than to be what he is, and now what's expected of him. He escapes Charybdis without ever harming the creature. Hermes showed Odysseus empathy and kindness, and never punished him for the choices Odysseus makes. He's by far the most empathetic and altruistic god, and Odysseus ends up being successful because of it.

In the song, "I Can't Help but Wonder," Athena ponders if she had been more emphatic and kind towards Odysseus, if she could have helped him stay more like Telemachus and spared him from what he's turned himself into. She even asks Odysseus if the world could be better if everyone made more room for empathy. I don't think she's just talking about the two of them. I think she's realizing that the gods have created a reality in which they view everything as "tit-for-tat." If the gods stepped back, and viewed mortals with more empathy, maybe the world could progress into something brighter.

By the end, Odysseus recognizes what he's done, and while he's haunted by it, he accepts those actions. He recognizes that the world he's lived in has made his heart dark and heavy, but he also accepts that he made the choices he did, because there's only one goal that matters to him. When he tells Penelope of his years away from home, he doesn't put any responsibility on anyone except himself. He recognizes that despite living in a world where the gods forced horrible choices on him, he still made ones to serve his own ends - to get back to his family. He became a monster because he's just a man in a brutal war. He simply wants to do whatever it takes to get home. He doesn't want to be a great man with pure morals. He wants to be just a man who's willing to make awful choices.

He essentially tells Athena, "it's a world I'll have to miss, because it's far from here, and I may not live long enough to see it." He tells Athena because of her position and status, she has the power and lifespan to maybe help change the ways of the gods, to make the world kinder than the one Odysseus has known. Maybe she can use her position of power to make a world where gods hold themselves accountable, so that maybe Telemachus and those who come after him will know a kinder world that won't ask them to make terrible decisions.

I've seen a few people say this, and even my mom said this a couple times, that her role in the movie isn't gendered. They don't think it's exclusively a girl's role, and that's what makes Kara so good. And I take so much issue with this because if you put a man in Kara's place, the context for EVERYTHING she says and does changes. She would inherently behave differently.

Before I start: I get it, someone's going to say, "but not all men!" I'm going to make generalizations because 1. It's like Russian roulette for women, and 2. It'll get old real quick making disclaimers every fricken time. Also, I'm exclusively talking about media. Yes, all this applies to real life, but since my point is about how Supergirl is inherently a gendered role...... everything below is in the context of storytelling and portrayals.

Let's look at the very beginning of the movie, before she meets Rutheye. Whenever men are depicted drinking to cover their pain, almost everything they do is an act. They're covering up their hurt and putting on almost a fake persona. Sometimes that can be gruff and stoic, or silly and unserious. Maybe something else. But Kara isn't doing that. She's authentically herself throughout the whole movie. She finds joy in life. She desires community. She wants to feel her emotions. She wants to experience normal physical sensations under a red sun. Nothing she does is an act, or a false persona she puts on. Kara wears all of her emotions and hurt on her sleeve. She drinks, sure, but I don't think she's doing it to forget as much as feel. Because when Rutheye asks Kara when she stopped feeling angry, and Kara tells her, "any day now," she's still deeply connected to her emotions. Shes still letting herself feel that anger instead of shutting herself off from it. I don't think her drinking is to cover it up as much as she just doesn't know how to work through it. That's not the same as suppressing it. Men... just aren't ever portrayed like that when they're in a similar position of drinking alcohol frequently. They typically suppress whatever internal struggle is dragging them down.

When Kara meets Rutheye at the dive bar, her reluctance never comes from not wanting to protect Rutheye, but instead not waning to lead her on a mission of murder. When men have been placed in this same role, they tend to keep their distance either because they genuinely don't care about the kid who will become their ward, or they fear it will hurt themselves. Examples that comes to my mind are Joel Miller from The Last of Us (video game), or Logan from the Logan movie. But Kara never hesitates to let Rutheye in. She's open and honest about her emotions and opinions at every given opportunity. She flat out tells Rutheye she will not take her into the mountains to kill Krem. She tells Rutheye that if she pursues revenge, it will destroy her. She doesn't come up with some bullshit to cover up her vulnerability. She speaks from the heart and genuine empathy.

We even see Kara willingly apologize to Rutheye after causing a scene at the bar on Bilquis, and not only did she acknowledge she handled the situation poorly, Kara directly pinpoints exactly why she lost her temper. Again, how many male characters can you think of who ever apologize, and when they do, point out their failings of their own volition? Barbie is what I'm thinking of as an example. Ken literally almost destroyed Barbie Land all because of his insecurities and inability to actually create a meaningful life on his own.... and he never once had to take accountability. I mean, I get he's supposed to be a criticism of toxic masculinity, but my point still stands. Since I've used it in the past in comparisons with Supergirl, Hidalgo is another movie where the male lead suppresses a lot of his hurt, and he never has to take accountability for the harm he caused, even though it was very much indirect and unintentional.

There's also the moment when Kara decides to tell Rutheye she's from Krypton. She initially lies to Rutheye about where she's from, and Rutheye takes it at face value. When Rutheye expresses curiosity about it later on, Kara makes the deliberate decision to be vulnerable about it. Kara doesn't have an external force pushing her to open herself up to the hurt and immense sense of loss. She does it so she can show empathy to Rutheye. They barely knew each other for a day by then. Men rarely open up like that in movies, and if they do, they're often badgered into it.

I really want to talk about the silent scream - this is honestly the part that made me want to write up an analysis to begin with. I've seen people say that how women let out their anger and frustration is significantly different than how men do it in movies and shows. Women, generally, try to limit as much harm as possible, which is why Kara screams into the vacuum of space. It's only recently we've seen women actually display rage and not shrink themselves to accommodate male characters. Men, on the other hand, tend to never consider what's around them, where they'll yell in someone's face, or they just bottle it all up and maybe destroy/hit something. I fully agree with all of that, but something I haven't seen anyone talk about is how this scene, fundamentally, proves that Kara Zor-El is a role only for women. Kara screams into the void. She purges her system of all the pent up anger and hurt... and then she locks the fuck in and gets to work to save her dog. Think of how many men in movies experience hardships, and then they need someone, usually a woman, to rally them into action? Obviously there are exceptions, like Clark in Superman 2025, but even though he had that moment with Pa Kent, I still don't consider that part of the trope, because if Clark had known Metropolis is in danger, he would've dropped his baggage for the sake of everyone else. But regardless, I feel like women have a much easier time regulating their system by putting themselves in a position where they can release emotions, and then they're able to get the job done. Men typically are forced to disconnect from vulnerable emotions, or anything that toxic masculinity thinks is too "feminine." It truly bleeds into tons of male roles, from how they're written and/or portrayed.

I can keep going on how Kara navigates the world, but I really want to touch on the sexism aspect. Think of men at a bar in movies when they're drinking. A woman might hit on him, but usually how they do it is by talking. Sometimes it gets physical, but more often it's simply talking, with flirting involved maybe. When Kara is at the dive bar right before Rutheye walks in, that alien guy stops Kara on the way to the dance floor, and it's heavily implied he asks to dance with her. Yes, he accepts her saying no, even though he's clearly bummed about it, but it's just so... typical that a man's first thought would be physical.

We have the moment where the alien takes Rutheye's sword and Kara goes out to reclaim it for her. It's implied the alien says, "you talk too much." Male characters like Peter Parker, who's a literal chatter box, has never been told he talks too much. From what I can remember, anyway. I'm sure there are dozens of other examples out there. But the point is that if Kara had been a male character, I can guarantee the line, "you talk too much," wouldn't have been in there, and I do think the script writer being a woman writing a woman character led to that moment being in the movie.

The entire bar sequence on Bilquis and how Kara and Rutheye are treated... I feel like all of that is self explanatory.

Kara is roofied. Like, I'm sure everyone picked up on that, but I'm so surprised I haven't seen anyone talking about it. She literally gets roofied to be traded in for sex trafficking. It's basically stated in the movie that the only prisoners the Brigands want are girls and young women. If Kara had been a man....... the intentions would have been MUCH different. The implications would have been different. Krem only changes his intentions with Kara once he realizes she's Kryptonian. Once he does, he cares more about her as a trophy than a slave, but until then... yea, it's fuckin dark. But I cannot get over the fact Kara is roofied, and how everything about that scene would have inherently meant something different if it had been a man.

Because Kara is a woman, she's experienced sexism firsthand. She immediately clocks what the Skalarian raiders are talking about in regard to the sex trafficking, and you can see in her expression she's dreading what she's dragging Rutheye into. A man might've eventually picked up on it, but the weight of it wouldn't have hit him like it does Kara. The male character probably wouldn't even fully be aware of the true danger Rutheye is in, and maybe wouldn't have been quite as protective in the ways Kara is.

Honestly, I could probably keep going. Maybe I'll make another post with more examples eventually. I just really wanted to word-vomit the points I had at the front of my mind. I think what they mean is that Supergirl isn't a "girl-power" movie, but there aren't any woman-led movies out there like this one. It's hard to define because it seems like it's the first of its kind. Supergirl 2026 is the first time we're seeing a woman get to be fully realized and display our true lived experiences. This is the most authentic lived experience I've seen for women since... ever.

Basically, I feel like Kara is the first woman character I ever thought something along the lines of, "this person exists in real life. Everything about her is real and authentic. She's not written or portrayed through a lens to make her an idealization for girls, particularly what men consider the 'ideal' woman. While I'm not 100% like her, I find so much about her that's relatable, and I actually see myself in her in so many ways. I actually feel inspired because what Kara does, being good and caring, is achievable for me. I can't say that about almost any other woman character. They feel they're out of reach for where I'm at."

I hope to god the delay doesn't have any correlation to Robert Pattinson potentially being in the DCU. I've seen the fancasts and every single one is inferior in my opinion. 😭 I've already made a few posts about why The Batman belongs in the DCU, and with the delay... ugh. I was using its release window with Man of Tomorrow as one production example for why the merge is potentially happening. Again, I have posts breaking all that down. I'm pretty sure one of them is my second post ever.

As a heads up, I'm not looking to argue with anyone or change my mind. If people dislike my opinion, you're free to block me. I have a deeply personal reason for feeling so strongly about The Death of Superman comic, but I'll not be sharing that personal reason. All I'll say is this story broke me because it hit way too close to home. All I ask is read through the whole post. I have absolutely no issue with them changing the entire story. Except for the thing I'm about to go on and on about, I think everything else works for what they're doing.

I'm going to be that annoying person and say that I'm pretty annoyed that MAWS took the title of "Death of Superman," and then didn't even actually go through with WHY that title exists.

I read that comic arc for the first time this year, and I sobbed several times reading it. Clark losing powers isn't anything new, and there have been alternate timelines where he's died. But in The Death of Superman, seeing how his death affected his parents and Lois... god, that killed me. Ma, Pa, and Lois didn't even get to properly say goodbye. When he died, his body was claimed by the world, and his loved ones had to grieve over the concept of him, while his body was put on a pedestal and fought over between agencies. His parents literally had no say in any of it. That was their baby boy and the only way they could see him was through a tiny TV screen. The three of them were the only non-powered people who knew the truth, and they could only find comfort with each other. Martha went out of her way to be there for Lois, because Lois couldn't even open up to her family about losing Clark.

I cried so hard when he came back, and he was even told that if he died again, he'd never come back to life. There were too many pure coincidences that lead to the ideal scenario for coming back to life. It shouldn't have happened, basically.

Taking Clark's powers away and calling it The Death of Superman is just...... ugh. I get that he'll have to go through an arc and realize he's Superman because of who he is, not his powers. But that's the POINT. Superman doesn't die with the powers. He's lost his powers several times throughout the comics, and every single time he stepped up and did what needed to be done to the best of his abilities. He knew when to step back and call for help. He knew if it was time to write an article for the Daily Planet.

And I get that he's been dead in alternate timelines or stories that take place in the future. Of course Clark can die. But the Death of Superman is as impactful of a story as it is because it takes place in the mainline story, and it deals with the fallout of his death. The power vacuum, the loss of the symbol of Hope, the loss of the shield of Earth, the absence of his stubborn kindness... The Death of Superman is specifically supposed to deal with the grief of Clark being gone, and how his literal death had a rippling effect around the world. Even comics published years and years later were still dealing with the fallout of it. I read a comic arc in 2006/2007 where Clark lost his powers for a year, and when he returned as Superman, civilians, and even other heroes, openly questioned if it was actually him, because they remembered what happened when he'd died and imposters had popped up claiming to be him. But the world never really truly felt the loss of Clark, because he was still there, calling the League when he saw something, and working overtime to publish articles.

The Death of Superman is not just about Clark dying. It's what the aftermath of that looks like, and how everyone deals with Superman no longer there to protect people.

There's also a level of tragedy in Clark embracing his death. Moments after the battle, he knows it's inevitable, and the solace he has to take with him is that at least he saved the world. All I'll say is that if this had been in the episode, I would've been a total mess of tears.

And again, I understand that in MAWS Clark thinks without his powers he can no longer be Superman, and he'll probably go through an arc in the next episode or two learning that it was never his powers that made him Superman. I get it. And again, it's not the first time Clark has lost his powers in other iterations. But on a meta level everyone knows he's Superman because of his innate goodness and desire to help, so for the audience there is no true "death." We will still see his kindness and eagerness to help, even without his ability to move mountains.

I also want to add that I don't have ANY issue with Clark losing his powers. I'm actually quite eager to see how this will affect him psychologically. In versions I've read or seen where he doesn't have powers, he immediately adapted and figured out ways to be helpful. He still affected the world around him, and he went on as if not having powers is normal. That's fine, whatever, but I AM curious to see if MAWS is going to have Clark really struggle without having his abilities. Not just from not being able to help people like he used to, but how it affects his day to day life. How it affects him feeling so disconnected from the world by having normal, human level senses. Like how declawing cats fucks with their minds, or keeping orcas trapped in tanks makes them lose their minds. I'm curious if they'll explore that, even if it's surface level. Moving on.

The latest episode shouldn't have been called The Death of Superman, and frankly I'm not sorry to say it. To be VERY clear, I don't have an issue with them changing the whole story - that's not what I'm critiquing. If they're going to co-opt the title, then they should at least legit kill him and make the audience and characters grapple with a reality where he's flat out gone. He's literally on his knees right after defeating Hank. That would've been the perfect time for it, and would've mirrored his battle with Doomsday so well. Shit, make it last into the next season. Let us actually see a world with no Superman, and make us live through it. That, or call the episode something else.

Showing a future reality where Clark is dead just doesn't count. That falls under the trope of a future or alternate reality where he's dead. The Death of Superman should take place in the current timeline and make the audience and characters live through the aftermath.

If anyone is curious, this is generally how I would shape the last portion of the season since they wanted to use The Death of Superman title so badly. It's going to be bare bones, because of course this is not the direction they're going, and unless I decide to write my first ever fanfic, I don't want to spend more than a few minutes jotting down some thoughts.

And nope, I'm not going to be tempted to write a fic. But I'd sure read this if someone wants to write it!

So my idea is that the episode would remain basically unchanged, but Clark dies moments after his battle with Hank. I don't even think Lois should have a chance to say goodbye. Maybe they have a chance to make one last eye contact, but.... idk. I'd personally start sobbing if they don't even get to have last words, but they get to see each other one last time. That's just me, though.

The government and/or Luthorcorp claims his body for their own selfish reasons. I don't think there should be any funeral put on by the government, maybe only through civilian efforts. I say this because in the comic Superman was a close ally to the government, so his funeral turned into a major national event. But in MAWS? The government wants him in their custody. So his body would remain with either organization and they wouldn't be the ones to put on any service. That would be up to the people, partially as an act of protest for withholding their hero's honor in death.

Now we have the Fortress Robots that have seemingly been forgotten. I only saw the first episode back when it aired, and I can't remember if any of the robots called themselves the Eradicator. If they did, then I missed it. Either way, I'm pretty sure that's what they're supposed to be, or what they're replacing. The way they were miffed by Kal-El's disregard gave me major flashbacks to the Eradicator prior to Clark's death in the comics, when the Eradicator had messed with Clark's mind to make him think and act more Kryptonian than human (I think that was back in the 80s?). In MAWS, the Eradicator should take Clark's body from the government/LuthorCorp and back to the Fortress... and then end that arc there. What happens next should be picked back up in season 4, and no one knows the fate of what happened to his body. Let the rest of season 3 show the characters having to figure out how to stop Lex without Superman's help. This could open the door for Bizarro and John Irons to play a huge role in the story, which would integrate the Reign of Superman arc into the show.

Season 4 can deal with the Eradicator bringing Clark back to life and molding him to be more like a true Kryptonian, a Kryptonian who wasn't raised to be human. I don't mean like what Brainiac did, because he bastardized the culture to make Kara into a killer. Clearly how Kara was raised wasn't how all of Kryptonian society was. Maybe not even any of it. I don't believe the simulations that Brainiac put Clark through to maintain control of his body represented the real Krypton at all. What would the real culture look like? I don't know. There's so little we know about Krypton in MAWS. But it would be fascinating to see Clark return from the dead, and I imagine there would be some major amounts of trauma from that. I'm sure his mind would not be okay, and coming back from death would likely make him even more susceptible to the Eradicator's determination to bring back remnants of Krypton.

If you haven't seen Supergirl or read Woman of Tomorrow, there will be spoilers!

Tbh, I struggled to even get through WoT. A couple times I thought about setting it down and seeing Supergirl 2026 again instead. But I wanted to give it a fair shake, because WoT is so beloved in the comic space and I really wanted to try LOVING it.

Everything just felt shallow compared to the movie. While I do like Kara in the comic, she felt... idk. I saw where they got the inspiration for Milly's Kara, but I felt like the movie explored her anger and grief much more in depth, and a lot of that IS thanks to Milly's performance. She felt like a much more fully realized character, and giving her a tangible reason to seek out Krem gave her arc much more weight. I also don't care they changed some pieces of her origin, and there really wasn't that much of a difference. If anything, there was way more emotion poured into the flashback on Krypton in the movie. We actually SEE Kara's parents and how they handled the destruction of their planet and the poisoning of their city. In WoT, they kind of felt like Clark's parents from John Byrne's origin, and the events of Krypton felt glossed over. The fact I'd have to go back and look to see what directives Kara was given in the comic by her parents already tells me that I did not connect with the Krypton flashbacks, not nearly like I did with the movie counterpart. WoT's Krypton sequence came across as emotionless and sterile. I also get why the lead sheets weren't included. For one thing, that concept wasn't introduced in Superman 2025, and lead seems like something that shouldn't be brought up for the first time in Supergirl. Secondly, there's a good chance Kryptonians just didn't know that lead can negate the effects of Kryptonite. Seeing Kara in the medical wing tending to patients was so gut-wrenching compared to seeing her hammering sheets of metal. She's trying so hard to help her people who are being poisoned from the last remaining piece of their home.

Rutheye's origin to get revenge on Krem felt so...... underdeveloped in the comic. I get that we're supposed to understand Rutheye loves her father, and that who she is as a person is the catalyst for why she wants to kill Krem. She didn't even see him die. She simply came across his body. But compared to the movie? It doesn't have any weight for me. Having Rutheye watch her family get slaughtered and seeing her whole world shatter out from under her...... it makes her drive for revenge so much more compelling, and better mirrors Kara's loss. Rutheye literally lost her world, and she has to seek out a new one in her aunt, just like how Kara finally decides to find one in Clark. I wish I had a more nuanced way to talk about Rutheye, but truth be told I simply liked her arc better in the movie. I also loved her characterization and the best parts about her still ended up in the movie. I thought how she was written and portrayed was incredible, and deeply nuanced.

Rutheye and Kara's dynamic in the movie is so much better too. Idk, man, but there wasn't anything from the comic that I wished ended up in the movie. The hand washing scene is something I've heard people gripe about not being included, and not knowing that while reading, I thought it was fine. It's literally just fine. I think the moment where Kara and Rutheye hug and Rutheye says, "I wish it never happened," and Kara replies, "I know." ........ man, that hits so freaking hard. I'd take that every single day over the handwashing scene. It's a cute moment, but the hug in the movie just conveys so much more tenderness and connection between them. Those two were also just so much better in general. The parallels between them is displayed way better, and we truly see it play out in how they interact. We actually see Rutheye take what she's learned from Kara and put it to use. Kara tricks Lobo by acting like a valley girl, and Rutheye later tricks the guards by putting on a tearful act. They learn so much from each other and it's just... it's way more powerful in the movie.

Now Krem................. sorry, but I was beyond let down by him in the comic. I saw people say he's so much better in it, and he's just not in my opinion. His tie to the main plot is so flimsy. Yea, he's not supposed to be central to the comic, but if that version of him had been put on the big screen, the plot would've felt loose. He would've truly felt pointless because he is pretty irrelevant. By making him the leader from the start and already running a trafficking network, and actually poisoning Krypto, it ties him more closely to what Kara and Rutheye are doing. Also, he's just as smart in the movie as he is in the comic. I've said this in previous posts, but he traps her on a planet with a green sun and shoots her with Kryptonite arrows in both versions. They made him far more menacing and he reflects very real predators in our government. The way Krem was portrayed also felt so disturbing. I really, really liked how giddy he was in every scene. It made what he was doing even more horrifying because he lives for it. He LOVES the harm he causes, and what better way to portray that than making the character display childlike glee. Also, the way he eats other peoples' food like he's entitled to it showed another way he asserts his dominance over people. He's just so much better in the movie and he might be one of the best comic book movie villains I've seen. The comic version? I couldn't care less about him.

When it comes to the sex trafficking plot, once again, I'm sorry, but the tragedies in WoT felt so fucking shallow. The narration from Rutheye literally went out of its way to skip over tragedies, and they felt distant. There was no real emotion from the characters, and most of the time Kara came across as kind of distant to it. I wish I could find the post again, but I saw someone say that they were committing a genocide in the movie, it wasn't just sex trafficking that they were doing. Either way, I don't think either topic is any less horrifying, and they didn't need to go deeper than they did in the movie. We saw what was happening quite explicitly AND they kill Krem. Seriously, how many movies have you seen where a woman beats the shit out of child abusers and kills the predator? There might be one or two out there, like I think Black Widow was one, but the movie completely shied away from the actual trafficking plot. It started out promising, but it shied away entirely from that discussion until the end, and it still stayed determined to stick as close to the MCU formula as possible. It even had the fucking audacity to center the Red Guardian or whoever and make him sympathetic, when HE GLADLY BENEFITED FROM THE TRAFFICKING SYSTEM. I genuinely believe Supergirl handled the trafficking plot well, better than any other story I've seen, because when we first learn about it, the moment is allowed to breathe. We see Kara's reaction, and the way she looks over at Rutheye, understanding the danger they're walking into. There aren't any jokes for a good couple minutes after that. The MCU would've cracked a joke in 10 seconds thinking the audience isn't mature enough to handle the topic. The B plot in Supergirl also remains prominent through the rest of the story. They don't let you forget the Brigands are traffickers. Also, remember, this movie is supposed to be approachable for children. Of fucking COURSE it's going to be simplified. If they handled it in a way intended only for adults, then kids couldn't watch Supergirl, and this movie is supposed to be for little girls to look up to. I feel like everyone keeps forgetting this major important fact, and it's pissing me off. Children need to be able to watch it and parents have to be comfortable taking their kids. So, yea fucking duh the sec trafficking is simplified. I'm still shocked it's even allowed to exist as it is.

Also also, I like that Kara kills Krem in the movie, but I won't be expanding on it because I already haven't a post about it. I don't hate he lives in the comic, I just like how the movie dealt with him better, because it fit the character arcs and themes.

Another thing I've seen people complaining about is the lack of color and how similar everything looks in the movie. To begin with, each planet they visit feel VASTLY different, and the last two (I can't remember their names and I can't be bothered to google it tbh, but they both look distinct in my mind) are supposed to be visual representations of how horrific and desolate sex trafficking is. Idk, the planet designs worked for me. Now Rutheye's planet? From the little we've seen, it's green and beautiful. But as far as variety of colors go... idk, I thought the comic was beautiful, but there was no possible way they could bring that to life. They would've had to use tons of weird color grading and CGI, and this is a low budget film. I also wasn't that enamored with the scenery in WoT, to be quite frank. The art style and coloring are really the only real draw, but when I looked at the actual environments, past the pretty colors, there really wasn't much of a distinction. The art style and coloring did all the heavy lifting and the environments themselves fell flat.

I don't care the dinosaurs weren't in the movie, and I don't care we didn't see the dragon. It just wouldn't have worked in the movie. I wish I had more to say about those, but honestly, I barely remember the dragon. I LOVE the scene with the Skalarian Raiders so much more. It shows how both her and Clark are so good at coming up with ideas on the fly, and getting scrappy with their opponents. The movie counterpart did so much to show who Kara is as a person. The dinosaurs would've been a budget nightmare and completely taken away from the core plot and themes. I've made posts about them and will keep making more posts eventually. I'm not going to expand more here.

Idk, guys. Maybe it's because I saw the movie first, but Supergirl 2026 meant so much more to me emotionally, and I'm starting to genuinely get pissed off every time I see a movie review and someone says the movie is weak because it's not like Woman of Tomorrow, because for me that's a GOOD thing. I literally have no desire to read it again. I had planned on buying the physical copy after I finally read it on DC Infinite, and I've removed it from my shopping cart. I order physical comics through Golden Apple Comics, btw. For Supergirl 2026? I already pre ordered the steelbook case and depending on when it's available on HBO, I do NOT mind buying it digitally. I just can't take criticisms of the movie with comparisons to the comic seriously. It genuinely feels like it's rooted in sexism.

Let's start with how Bruce's arc perfectly sets him up to be suspicious of Superman's "Boy Scout" persona. Both Clark and Bruce go through a journey where they dedicated their superhero personas to their parents, only then to learn their parents weren't who they thought they were. This leads them having to interrogate what their paths forward will be. For Clark, it's realizing that being a helper is what he's always wanted to be, based on the childhood his parents provided him. For Bruce, he realizes he needs to let go of Vengeance and become a symbol of Hope. I mean come ONNN. But anyway, the revelation of Bruce's parents opens him up perfectly for being paranoid of Superman. When Bruce confronts Falcone, Falcone says, "you thought your father was a Boy Scout, but you'd be surprised even a good man like him is capable of the right situation."

GUYSSSSS 😭

Not convinced and need further proof? Okay, here's another example.

Superman 2025 opens up in the tundra, with the sun out. The very first living being we see on screen is Superman, and once he's healed from the sun, we as the audience experience firsthand the warmth and kindness that exudes from Superman. You can't help but smile and feel a little safer. For at least roughly of the first 10 minutes, Clark is the ONLY protagonist we see on screen (barring Eve, but on the first watch we don't know this), and we see how comfortable civilians are around him. They barely run when he gets tossed onto the sidewalk.

Now with The Batman, we don't see Bruce for at least 10 minutes. Yes, we see him as the Drifter, but we don't actually really SEE him until he shows up to confront the thugs. Before we see him walk out as Batman, we witness how terrified the criminals in Gotham are of The Batman. The tension and the terror is palpable, and already the audience is tense, just from observing how the city reacts to him, long before we ever see him. When we see Batman interact with a civilian, the victim begs Batman not to hurt him.

Superman is the sun.

Batman is the shadows.

Supergirl spoilers!