Why Didn't They Use The February Cut?
Yesterday, THR posted a breakdown of the post-production process on Supergirl. When combining this report with previous ones, there were five different versions of Supergirl screened after production ended:
- October 2025: The internal DC Studios/WB screening. Not much is known about this cut. More than likely, this was an early assembly just used to gauge progress.
- December 2025: Craig Gillespie's first director's cut. This version tested middling in the 60s and reportedly saw music as a contention point. Following this screening, DC Studios took over the post-production process.
- February 2026: The "Fun" Cut as I'll call it due to its reported use of "Girls Just Want To Have Fun" in the climax. This version saw reshoots written by Jeremy Slater, continued involvement from Ana Nogueira, and scored in the low 70s, a considerable improvement.
- March 2026: After that cut, two cuts were then tested in March. One submitted by Gillespie, and one submitted by the studio. The studio cut is the final, theatrical version we ended up receiving. Gillespie's cut was reportedly similar but had 11 extra minutes that focused more on Krem, as well as reportedly having song choices audiences preferred to the studio cut. Both versions tested lower than the Fun Cut, yet the studio still put forward their cut (Which tested only two points higher than Gillespie's) as the final version.
- Note: It's possible that the song choices from Gillespie's cut were then pasted into the studio cut to meld them together, though also potentially not. It's unclear.
While some are trying to debate the impact of that extra 11 minutes or the potentially different songs in Gillespie's second cut, there's something more baffling: The existence of the Fun Cut itself which tested higher than the two that followed it. Logic would have it that if test screenings declined, you would revert to the earlier, better-received version, yes? So why didn't they?
I've been thinking about this all day. The reasons can only be speculation, and we'll likely never know the exact reason. But I was able to come up with a few possible reasons:
- Runtime and Sunk Costs. If the Pre-March cuts were all over 2 hours, and thus significantly longer than the final studio cut, but still only tested slightly higher than the final cut, they may have decided to go for more screenings at the cost of a slightly worse cut knowing that the movie wasn't good enough even in the longer form to actually make up for less screenings. Especially with all the box office projections continuing to trend down over the first half of the year.
- Directorial Approval. A second scenario I could theorize is that Gillespie would've been entirely against The Fun Cut due to having no influence on it (Even Nogueira was still allowed to have a say while Gillespie wasn't), and demanded a second chance to make his own cut. The the final studio cut was edited from his second chance as an attempt to compromise with the director and still give him some control. E.g., Gillespie could accept the second studio cut but wouldn't have accepted the Fun Cut. In this scenario Gunn's want to make the director still feel like he had some control could've been a detriment.
- Budget, Music, and VFX. By the March cuts, a lot of money would have been spent on the music (By then we were on composer 3 already I believe) and VFX to be presentable even to test audiences. With only 3 months left, it's possible they didn't have the time or budget to revert to an earlier cut and re-do VFX and rescore it, and thus had to simply charge on.
Regardless of speculation, this supposedly better cut of Supergirl remains an enigma. And in that vein, I really beg that when the movie comes to home media, it includes all four versions (Even if incomplete states VFX and score-wise). The last thing the DCU needs is another alternate cut controversy hanging over it, DC's had enough of that. Home media is the place to toss alternate versions as bonuses anyways, why not toss out all tested versions and then see how people respond. That way you can learn, more accurately, what people do and don't like about the film and how it came together, on a larger scale than a test screening does. Even if the other cuts are all worse and those test audiences were nuts, I'd still say it's worth it just to prevent more alternate cut campaigns or whatnot. And, speaking personally, I enjoy watching rough versions of films anyways, even when early edits suck I like seeing films evolve in editing. It's a fascinating thing, and I don't see how it would hurt anything.