This past weekend heralded the second installment in the Warner Brothers’ DC Universe (DCU) reboot. Suffice it to say, “Supergirl,” featuring “House of the Dragon” actress Milly Alcock, had a belly flop of an opening weekend.

No one is surprised at all.

The saturation of mediocre superhero movies has disincentivized moviegoers when a film reads as generic. And according to critics, “Supergirl” is certainly that. However, the team also had a much greater supervillain to battle: its leading lady, Milly Alcock.

The lead-up to the second addition of the DCU series under director James Gunn was positive. People were excited about the new direction “Superman” had taken under Gunn, and Alcock made a cameo appearance in the 2025 box office hit as Supergirl. However, the “Supergirl” movie had a different director, and Alcock was the main focus of press tours.

Alcock needs media training, to put it graciously. She fell into every trap interviewers set to make her a controversial figure. In other words, she failed to promote her new movie.

It all started with a Vanity Fair interview, during which Alcock was asked how her previous role in “House of the Dragon” had prepared her for potential negative pushback from the audience. “It definitely made me aware that simply existing as a woman in that space is something that people comment on,” she replied. “We have become very comfortable having this weird ownership of women’s bodies. I can’t really stop them. I can only be myself.”

From Alcock’s point of view, actors being critiqued for their appearance is a women-only issue. It was a thoughtless comment, and there was backlash to it. But instead of acknowledging that she had made a faux pas, Alcock took aim at a significant portion of her potential audience: Christian dads.

“I guess women know that this is just how it’s always been, unfortunately,” she said. “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 p***ing the right kind of people off, you’re doing OK.”

Here, Alcock doubled down on her original thoughtless comment, fully straying into radical feminist territory and attacking her audience. For those keeping score, Alcock went from merely whiny to full-on feminist tropes.

I wish I could say that was the worst of it. Yet the hits kept on coming.

Alcock took the bait when asked about her character’s supposed sexuality and whether she participated in anything to help her prepare for the role. First of all, the question was inappropriate, and if Alcock were a more seasoned actress, she would have shut that down. Instead, she giggled and said she thought her character was bisexual.

“she’d probably go both ways” the girl kisser allegations continue… https://t.co/7DMehBaJ0M pic.twitter.com/GEbfpqZBJk

— sonia (@finalgirlsonia) June 19, 2026

Alcock also admitted to interviewers that she had never seen the original 1984 “Supergirl” movie. Aren’t these actresses supposed to be knowledgeable about all the source material?

People heard about these remarks and were starkly reminded of Rachel Zegler and Disney’s live-action remake of “Snow White.” Like Zegler, Alcock is ignorant of her source material; is a feminist who doesn’t want a love story but rather yearns to be a girl boss; and is woke on the LGBTQ+ issues.

To be fair, Alcock isn’t the only reason this movie wasn’t successful. The trailers looked inane. The actual movie had nothing fresh to offer. The movie’s scriptwriter, Ana Noguiera, wrote a weak screenplay. Audiences weren’t able to suspend their disbelief with this antihero figure who was an alcoholic one minute and a hero the next.

All that self-sabotage led to a reckoning at the box office. Warner Bros. was hoping to make at least $50 million domestically and $80 million globally during the opening weekend, and even that was a downgrade from what the studio hoped for before Alcock started talking. Unfortunately for Warner Bros., the movie grossed $38 million domestically and $68 million internationally. In other words, it was a flop of epic proportions — and considering it cost the studio hundreds of millions of dollars to create and promote, the chances of breaking even are small.

Rotten Tomatoes gave the movie a “rotten” rating. Moviegoers gave it a B-.

Nevertheless, The New York Times decided to throw “Supergirl” a bone and blame its bad ratings on men. Hollywood correspondent Brooks Barnes waxed eloquent by claiming, “Box office analysts on Sunday noted an uncomfortable truth: Female-led superhero movies have been rejected almost uniformly over the past five years or so, perhaps reflecting a resurgent misogyny among the core fan base, which is largely male.”

Perhaps the guys aren’t to blame for “Supergirl’s” super flop. Perhaps the fault lies with Hollywood in general and Warner Bros. in particular for losing sight of what the whole Superman franchise is all about. They have utterly divorced the IP from its roots of “truth, justice, and the American way,” instead making it into self-centered slop.

Hollywood cannot make successful films anymore because it does not love its audience; it loves arbitrary DEI rules and woke preaching from the silver screen. Filmmakers and actors have so divorced themselves from the American people that there are hardly any offerings coming out for America’s 250th birthday. The only one we can really count is “Young Washington,” which admittedly looks really good.

The astonishing thing is that indie filmmakers are finding huge success in the industry. YouTubers-turned-filmmakers have been the surprise contribution to movies this year. They already have a built-in audience, but the fact that they actually have an audience they care for is why they’ve found success.

Hollywood isn’t changing its ways and is content to spit on its audience. Directors are also setting themselves up for failure by letting their actresses sink the product with provocative, antagonistic behavior. It’s a recipe for a mediocre film to flop, which is just what “Supergirl” did.