![\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/ca3225f1981da1cf4963051fcffde896.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\nWhen you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Credit: Warner Bros Pictures\/DC Studios<\/p>\n
Supergirl \u2013 the latest film from DC Studios \u2013 has generated plenty of discussions since its release as part of the 2026 movie schedule<\/a>, and not all of it has been good. While early reactions to the latest DCU movie<\/a> were mostly positive, audience and critical reception has been mostly mixed since, and the film is now flopping at the box office. Various film pundits have seemingly been analyzing the situation, trying to assess what happened. Now, insiders are sharing claims about early test screenings, and they were allegedly less than stellar.<\/p>\n As is the case with many major studio films, Craig Gillespie\u2019s Supergirl was subject to test screenings, which are used to test the waters in regard to what hits and what doesn\u2019t hit for audiences. It was reported back in October that DC Studios Co-CEO James Gunn held a secret screening<\/a> for executives and some close friends. That aside, THR<\/a> recently reported that Gillespe\u2019s latest movie was marred by creative differences with Gunn, one of the film\u2019s producers and, as a result, the post-production process was supposedly hectic.<\/p>\n Insiders also alleged that the Milly Alcock-led superhero film ultimately had at least four official test screenings held between December 2025 and March 2026. The test scores are tallied out of 100 points, and sources claimed the movie \u201cnever escaped\u201d the 60s. However, another source claimed the best score the movie attained was a 70. Yet an additional insider provided a different alleged take, as they claimed the film achieved test scores in the low 70s by the winter after changes were made to the cut.<\/p>\n Still, creative disagreements apparently persisted for different reasons, including the film\u2019s music (and that final-battle needle drop<\/a>). THR\u2019s sources alleged that, in time, a second cut of the film was produced by the studio and was put into a \u201cbakeoff\u201d with Gillespie\u2019s cut. Apparently, Gillespie\u2019s version was 11 minutes longer and included more of Matthias Schoenaerts\u2019 Krem of the Yellow Hills (the film\u2019s thin and MCU-esque villain<\/a>). After both cuts screened, scores reportedly dropped all around, but the studios\u2019 won out by only two points.<\/p>\n More on Supergirl<\/p>\n Supergirl in costume in front of blue and yellow logo in Supergirl poster<\/p>\n Where Is All This Supergirl Hate Coming From? Seriously, What Is Going On?<\/a><\/p>\n The test screening process can definitely be tedious but, in many ways, it can help indicate how an audience will respond to a film. As for creative disagreements, those can happen as well, and the results can vary. Per a source, a bakeoff \u201chappens more than you think, but it\u2019s not normal.\u201d Regardless of what really happened behind closed doors between Gillespie, Gunn and co. from a creative standpoint, insiders said most of Supergirl\u2019s test scores were in the 60s, which are the scores that fellow DC flicks Shazam! Fury of the Gods and the scrapped Batgirl also apparently earned.<\/p>\n Supergirl\u2019s box office debut was lackluster<\/a>, with the film only earning $38 million domestically during its opening weekend and finished those first few days with $68 million worldwide. The domestic number was notably below expectations, which had the film earning between $39 million up to $55 million. For context, the film reportedly has a $175 million production budget, and it needs to make somewhere between $315 million and $375 million to break even. As for how the film will perform during this 4th of July holiday weekend, Forbes<\/a> is forecasting a 73% drop and $10 million domestic haul.<\/p>\n![\"Supergirl](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/7dc8da924b407953c4a8e095b29b5089.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n