A cinematic universe can be a massive money maker, but it has to be handled with the utmost care, because any trip-ups don't just affect a singular movie or show — they cause the entire franchise to stumble. This means every script needs to be coherent, every casting needs to be on point, and all of it needs to come together to form one epic story, and when I say "epic," I mean the story of a long journey.
But this also means that elements connected to the movies have to act in a manner that doesn't alienate audiences. If directors, producers, or actors say or do anything that people find insulting or off-putting, then they may not just refuse to show up; they may refuse to show up to any other movies as well.
You saw this happen in the MCU when Brie Larson insulted its core male audience with her comments. While they still showed up for "Captain Marvel" because the MCU was still high on momentum, her subsequent appearances left a bad taste in the mouths of many, so much so that they rewrote various scenes in other movies to exclude Larson's character. Regardless, Larson's comments poisoned the well, and her inclusion in movies was viewed more like an imposition than an inclusion.
You'd figure the latest issues with actors and actresses running their mouths and bombing their movies would've been a pretty clear lesson to anyone in Hollywood. For anyone involved in making the film, page one, paragraph one would contain, in big bold letters: "SHUT THE F**K UP." This would especially go for anyone involved in a cinematic universe.
Apparently, too few people working for James Gunn got that message.
As you may or may not know, Gunn is in charge of the DC Cinematic Universe. He's been handed the keys to such characters as Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, and more, and while he's leading with Superman, Gunn is doing what he does best, and that's focus on B to C-tier characters. His upcoming movie focuses on Supergirl, played by Milly Alcock.
Gunn's DCU was already on thin ice. Superman didn't perform quite like he wanted it to, and people were already upset over the hero being portrayed as borderline insecure and kind of goofy. Accusations that Gunn is a one-trick pony, capable of only taking misfit characters and making offbeat found family stories, weren't helping.
Supergirl's trailers also didn't help. Here we see a cynical Kara Zor-El, who drinks and fights while saying smug one-liners, had people rolling their eyes.
If people had just taken the internet backlash in stride, kept a positive attitude, and only said nice things, it might have won a good portion of the audience over, and they would've supported the movie because we naturally like good-natured people who are just doing their best.
But that didn't happen.
Alcock did an interview in Variety where she said this (emphasis mine):
“I guess women know that this is just how it’s always been, unfortunately,” Alcock adds. “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.”
And with that, the film just bombed, and Warner Bros seems to know it. The film is tracking to open with a weak box office take of around $50 to $60 million, similar to "The Marvels." Possibly lower, with a steep week two collapse due to it being sandwiched between Steven Spielberg's "Disclosure Day" and "Toy Story 5."
Warner Bros. reacted to it all by releasing a third trailer for the film, this time heavily featuring David Corenswet's Superman, which many are assuming indicates the studio is shaking in its boots. This was supposed to be a girl power film, and now they're shoving the MAN of Steel into the trailers.
New ‘SUPERGIRL’ tv spot featuring David Corenswet’s Superman! pic.twitter.com/hrYTQHoBuq
— DC Film News (@DCFilmNews) May 23, 2026
Supergirl is likely going to flop, but it's worse than that.
Alcock poisoned the well, a la the Larson approach of insulting the core audience of men. This never ends well, and the issue never just stops at the singular movie. Alcock just sank Gunn's DCU, and any project that includes it will now likely have people shrugging off whatever's offered. The MCU's strategy was to limit Larson's involvement as much as contractually possible in an attempt to stop the poison from consuming the entire universe.
So what will Gunn do now?
He may very well have to do the same thing to Alcock or risk the DCU plunging into the red and eventually losing his job. Or possibly even recast Alcock, but that might not be enough. Alcock clearly felt very comfortable saying that, and no one has come forward to denounce or distance themselves from her statement, which means they're probably not too dissimilar in their thinking. This may very well bleed through in various ways, further sinking the franchise.
But either way, Alcock is now a problem. A problem that casts a lot of bad faith on the franchise as a whole, not just her film. I don't expect the DCU to survive much longer, at least not under Gunn's control.
If only people would just learn to keep their mouths shut.
