Supergirl was meant to be a major early flex for the new DC Universe: proof that the studio’s fresh era could fly beyond the projects written and directed by James Gunn himself. Instead, the Milly Alcock-led blockbuster has landed with mixed-to-poor reviews (our own review here), weak box-office momentum and, now, a behind-the-scenes report pointing to a film that may have been struggling to find its shape long before it reached cinemas.

The financial picture is rough. At the time of writing, Supergirl has crossed US$100 million worldwide — a result that would be disappointing for most modern superhero releases, let alone one carrying this level of spend. The film reportedly cost around US$175 million to produce, with an estimated US$100 million more spent on marketing. On that kind of outlay, Supergirl would likely need a worldwide total in the neighbourhood of US$450 million to US$500 million before it could start looking like a break-even prospect.

That makes this more than just another underperforming comic-book movie. Following Gunn’s Superman, Supergirl was the first big-screen DCU chapter not written and directed by Gunn, giving it added pressure as a test of the studio’s broader creative model. Could Gunn and Peter Safran’s DC Studios expand through other filmmakers while still keeping the universe coherent, confident and commercially appealing?

According to a new report from The Hollywood Reporter, that process was far from clean.

Supergirl Reportedly Had Competing Cuts

The report says that DC Studios tested two different versions of Supergirl in March: one from director Craig Gillespie (Cruella, I, Tonya), and another shaped by the studio. Test screenings had reportedly not inspired much confidence, with scores said to have mostly remained in the 60s. One insider told the outlet the film’s highest score was 70.

One source framed the issue as a lack of creative alignment between Gunn and Gillespie, while others pushed back and described the process as fairly standard studio-filmmaker tension on a major tentpole. Still, testing rival versions of the same film that late in the game hardly suggests smooth sailing.

The studio version reportedly came out ahead, but only just. THR says it beat Gillespie’s cut by two points, after which DC Studios moved forward with its preferred version. Gillespie’s cut was reportedly 11 minutes longer and featured more of Krem, the villain played by Matthias Schoenaerts. It was also said to have performed better in areas such as song choices, pacing and villain material.

That will inevitably fuel curiosity about what Gillespie’s version looked like. Whether it would have changed the film’s fate is another matter entirely.

A Film Caught Between Creative Instincts

The behind-the-scenes account points to a post-production process under pressure. After a reportedly underwhelming December test screening, DC Studios became more hands-on with the edit. Writer Jeremy Slater was reportedly brought in during post-production, while original screenwriter Ana Nogueira remained involved. Additional photography is said to have lasted nine days, with the climactic fight among the elements reworked.

The editing room also appears to tell part of the story. Gillespie’s regular collaborator Tatiana S. Riegel worked on the film, while Fred Raskin, a longtime Gunn collaborator on the Guardians of the Galaxy films and Peacemaker, was reportedly brought in later.

Then there is the much-discussed music. The final film’s use of a cover of Jimmy Eat World’s “The Middle” has been mocked online, but THR reports that an earlier version used a cover of Cyndi Lauper’s “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” during the final set piece. Both choices were reportedly connected to Gunn.

It is the kind of detail that gets people talking, although it probably should not be treated as the reason Supergirl stumbled. A different needle drop, a longer runtime or a little more villain material may have changed the flavour of the finished film, but the bigger issue appears to be a movie pulled in different directions. One version may have edged out the other, but neither seems to have solved the core problem.

Why This Matters for DC Studios

The awkward part for DC is not simply that Supergirl underperformed. One weak film does not destroy a whole universe. The problem is what this particular weak result represents.

Gunn has become the public face of the new DCU in a way few studio heads are for a major franchise. That has advantages: a clear voice, a visible plan and a sense of authorship after years of messy DC continuity. But Supergirl raises an uncomfortable question about how that voice works when other filmmakers are meant to be steering individual films.

Safran has already acknowledged the film’s performance, telling The New York Times: “While Supergirl didn’t meet our box office expectations, it’s just one component of a broader, long-term strategy at DC Studios that we remain confident in.”

That strategy is still moving. Clayface is on the way, Gunn is directing Man of Tomorrow, and Matt Reeves’ The Batman: Part II remains a separate but significant part of Warner Bros.’ DC future. Reported small-screen projects centred on characters such as Jimmy Olsen and Mr. Terrific also suggest the studio is still pushing ahead with Gunn’s interest in lesser-known corners of the DC roster.

Even so, Supergirl has made the road ahead bumpier. The film was meant to show that the new DCU could soar outside Gunn’s direct control. Instead, it has landed as an expensive warning sign: rebuilding DC will take more than a fresh continuity, a new tone and a familiar cape.