Gizmodo57%

Ah, That's Why 'Supergirl' Turned Out How It Did 54%

By Justin Carter72%

7/4/2026, 2:30:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Negativity Bias, and Hindsight Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 46.2% saturation with 220 hits. Analysis detected 1,222 faulty-reasoning hits from 476 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.2% and a BS Rank of 54% (10,197 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.40% of the article peer group.

Supergirl came out last week, and it's clearly not setting the world on fire like many had assumed or hoped. 
Now it's time to figure out just what happened here, and that's where the Hollywood Reporter comes in. 
In a new report, the outlet alleged there were creative differences between director Craig Gillespie and producer James Gunn. 
One source claims the pair “were not creatively aligned,” while others say any issues had were of the standard variety instead of anything salacious. 
By the time filming wrapped in May 2025, Gillespie and the studio reportedly knew the movie didn't really have it, leading to some tweaks. 
For example, Gunn enlisted Mortal Kombat II writer Jeremy Slater to help original writer Ana Nogueira punch up the script, which led to the final fight getting “reconfigured.” 
THR's sources claim Supergirl had four test screenings, and this is where things truly hit a wall. 
There were two editors on the film, Fred Raskin—who's worked with Gunn before on Peacemaker and the Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy—and Tatiana S. 
Riegel, Gillespie's longtime editor on Cruella and I, Tonya. 
Scores improved with each new cut, and then WB reportedly decided to pit two different versions against each other: a cut it made during post-production, and Gillespie's version. 
It's said Gillespie's is 11 minutes longer and scored better in terms of villain, song choices, and pacing. 
But since WB's cut had an overall higher score by two points, it's the one that went out to theaters. 
According to someone uninvolved with the film but experienced in franchises, this type of situation has happened before, but is still “not normal. 
If a studio is going to put money into the test process, it means they feel strongly about certain things.” 
After that point, the movie never got tested again, and Gillespie allegedly had to personally advocate for whatever he wanted to be in it. 
Except for the controversial needle drop of a cover of Jimmy Eat World's “The Middle” during an action scene near the end: that reportedly came from Gunn, as did Cindy Lauper's “Girls Just Want to Have Fun,” another potential candidate for the set piece. 
With Supergirl as the sophomore effort for these new DC movies, its failure to launch hits harder than if it came later in the game. 
Even so, things seem to be business as usual for now: Clayface is out in October, and Man of Tomorrow—which Milly Alcock will be in—comes in July 2027. 
THR notes that Gunn's influence will still be felt: Jimmy Olsen's still getting his comedy spinoff DC Crime, and a Mr. 
Terrific spinoff from The Sandman writer Allan Heinberg is in “active development.” 
Anything else after that, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out, including Paramount's play at acquiring Warner Bros. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.0%Justin Carter: 7.1%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias5.0%This article: 4.2%Justin Carter: 1.5%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 7.6%Justin Carter: 2.7%Gizmodo: 3.1%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 4.2%Justin Carter: 2.1%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic4.2%This article: 12.8%Justin Carter: 2.5%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias12.8%This article: 4.4%Justin Carter: 0.9%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 5.9%Justin Carter: 6.2%Gizmodo: 5.5%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 5.3%Justin Carter: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion5.3%This article: 5.9%Justin Carter: 1.4%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias5.9%This article: 5.0%Justin Carter: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect5.0%This article: 8.4%Justin Carter: 4.1%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias8.4%This article: 5.3%Justin Carter: 1.3%Gizmodo: 2.1%Pessimism Bias5.3%This article: 17.0%Justin Carter: 9.9%Gizmodo: 7.5%Negativity Bias17.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.6%Gizmodo: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Justin Carter: 0.6%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Justin Carter: 1.2%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.0%This article: 6.3%Justin Carter: 5.4%Gizmodo: 2.9%Halo Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.1%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Justin Carter: 2.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.8%Justin Carter: 3.4%Gizmodo: 4.3%Appeal to Authority8.8%This article: 10.1%Justin Carter: 3.0%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma10.1%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 5.3%Justin Carter: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning5.3%This article: 4.2%Justin Carter: 7.6%Gizmodo: 5.3%Hasty Generalization4.2%This article: 9.2%Justin Carter: 2.1%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring9.2%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 2.8%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.3%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.5%Justin Carter: 4.3%Gizmodo: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.5%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.5%Gizmodo: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.0%Justin Carter: 5.1%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal8.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.6%Justin Carter: 2.5%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.6%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 46.2%Justin Carter: 10.1%Gizmodo: 4.6%Unattributed Quote46.2%This article: 4.4%Justin Carter: 2.9%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection4.4%This article: 9.2%Justin Carter: 8.3%Gizmodo: 13.5%Biased Writer Voice9.2%This article: 4.2%Justin Carter: 2.9%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination4.2%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Justin Carter: 7.2%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.8%

476 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers37%attributed speech299writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageHollywood Reporter • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageJames Gunn • 28 words • 100.0% coverageTHR • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWarner Bros. • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWarner Bros. • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageJames Gunn • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageTHR • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

THR

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words21% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Quote-first Misdirection+55.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%THR: 55.3%55.3%Unattributed Quote-33.8 ptsWriter: 33.8%THR: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%THR: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%THR: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%THR: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.