‘Batgirl’ is Good?

Before it got “destroyed” by Warner head David Zaslav, “Batgirl” was test screened in Sherman Oaks. Twitter insider Viewer Anon attended that screening. He opened up a bit about it last night:

You know what? Fuck it at this point. I saw BATGIRL last year. It was solid.

In the comments section, ViewerAnon elaborates that “Batgirl” wasn't terrible by a long shot and that it set up its own sequel. His rating would be a 6 out of 10, which isn't bad at all for a test screening. They added that the film probably needed standard reshoots to tweak stuff out. Brendan Fraser’s performance was supposedly great and the best part of the movie.

Not that I really care about yet another superhero movie being released in theaters — the less, the better, but the “Batgirl” controversy fascinates me. It was the kind of industry moment that could feasibly change things, for the worse.

The industry was stunned last year by Warner Bros’ total shelving of “Batgirl.” Was the film that bad that it needed to be destroyed from existence? Is it a cursed movie that kills you seven days after having seen it, ala “The Ring”?

It turned out that the film’s shelving had to do with tax returns. Variety had reported that Warner Bros. scrapped “Batgirl” not just because they didn’t like it, but because it made sense via a tax write-down standpoint.

Apparently the tax returns allowed Warner to make their budget back but only if they destroyed the movie’s existence. This tax return default could very well be something other studios copy in the future.

Also, don’t buy Warners’ excuse that test screenings were poor. As per THR, “Batgirl‘s test score, which was a director’s cut, is comparable to tests for the first It (2017), which wound up grossing $700.3 million globally, as well as an early test for the upcoming Shazam! Fury of the Gods. Both of those films tested in the 60s.”

Last year, we had another reaction posted, this person claimed to have seen a cut of “Batgirl” and that it didn’t deserve Warners’ axing.

“I didn't think Batgirl was bad enough to just scrap, it’s not terrible, Black Adam is a much worse movie and still got a wide release, but Batgirl felt like a movie made for a streamer. It also felt very much like a pandemic movie. Everything was very contained. even the climatic set piece was really just a short car chase on about a half dozen back lot streets.”

“Brendan Fraser was good enough as Firefly, but also wasn't a very fleshed out role. He felt like a cartoon serial villain that comes in for one 20 minute episode and dies. Michael Keaton was incredibly underused in a "mentor" role. He probably only works 2-3 days on set and is in about 10 minutes of the film.”

“It's really kind of a mob or a crime movie above anything. The mob have taken over Gotham and are passing the torch onto the next generation who are trying to make it more legit. The older generation are trying to tie up loose ends before they do that and they bring in Firefly who is a retired mob assassin working as a butcher and is kind of at the end of his rope financially. Barbara Gordon takes it upon herself to try and stop him, with guidance from Batman, as he's already killed her mother and set his sights on her father, Commissioner Gordon. That is kind of the gist of it. Again, it is very self contained and a lot of it is a crime procedural about finding out 1) who firefly is (or rather who is committing the arsons) and 2) who is really behind the whole thing (who is paying firefly).”