top of page

So... Can we stop with the bad marketing please WB? DC League of Super-Pets deserved better.


Its fifth August and I just came from an unfortunately empty Theatre, after watching DC League of Super-Pets.


I am going to praise this movie quite a lot before I get into it's horrible marketing, but boy do I want to rip apart it's horrible marketing. But I shall show restraint.


So what is this movie? It's exactly what you would expect, there are pets, and they have superpowers.


How? Well Krypto is pretty obvious, he is just from Krypton, like superman is, which can I just say, I did hear a lot of complaints about other Kryptonians kind of making the whole last son of Krypton thing redundant? Well it doesn't in theory because, till then Kryptonians were made in birthing pods and had a predetermined role, Kal-El was the first natural birth in centuries, and in an ironic turn of events he also became its last natural birth, so yeah technically he is still the last son of Krypton.


But like the phrase has this ring to it which seems to imply that he is the last person to ever remain of Krypton, cause that's what it fucking was originally, now it's like we have Kara, who is super girl, we have power girl, and now Krypto, goddammit did everyone survive?


anyways, superficial complaints aside, Krypto is really adorable, and so is his daytime nightmare about Lois replacing him once she and Superman get married, like that shit was hilarious.

But I digress, so what is this movie really, apart form the obvious, well it's someone's idea to take the basic concept of a superhero, and then give it to the weirdest animal possible, like know the flash? Well what if the flash, but a tortoise, who can't see properly, so not only is it the slowest animal ever, but it can't see shit.


Remember wonder woman? Remember how she is really strong and decisive? What if a pig who is enamored by her and blows up in size, just because.


Batman is the only one of the Justice league who is vulnerable cause he is human? Oh right his pet version also has a tragic backstory of loosing his family, but now, he is the least vulnerable of the team so they just use him like a shield.


And Lex Luthor is a bald villain? well take a Guinea pig make her bald and make her enamored by Luthor, there, you have your villain, oh and there are also these two hamsters that are like total bros but like one is fire and one is ice, so even though they stay together, they like actively harm each other.


Now, if this was it, this would have been pretty bad, but its not, the villain Lulu, is not just Luthor but Guinea pig, she is a representation of the effect Luthor has on other people, this Guinea pig was experimented on and tortured to the extent that not only made her bald, but in a very Stockholm syndrome manner, she believes that Luthor loved her, as she too like the other pets just wants to desperately have an owner, and she believes this lie so much that she hates Krypto and Superman for saving her from Abuser.


And so what does she do when she sees her "owner" captured and imprisoned? She creates her own evil invention and proceeds to leave all of her friends from the pet shop to DIE IN A FIRE and causes untold destruction in the town to go free her "master" only to in the end be tossed aside like she meant nothing, like... is there a better representation of the cycle of abuse?

In fact the need for an owner can define the conflicts of most of the pet characters in this movie, in fact it is explicitly stated when the pets, who have been in the shop for god knows how long, talk about "the farm" and groan in frustration as once again, they are left behind and a cat that just came yesterday is adopted.


Now, in a lesser movie, a cat would just randomly have been made a villain just because, I don't need to tell you why, the problem with that, would have been that, because of what the movie establishes, i.e. no cats or kittens stay longer than a day, there was no way this cat would have formed a personal relationship with the hero team, at least not on the level that Lulu did, and the relationship between the Hero and the Villain defines how good their conflict can be, whether it will be just a video game finale or a battle with huge personal stakes.


But a lesser movie would also not have taken the cat thing further, now that might seem like I am contradicting myself, but the point I am trying to make is, the cat needs to be a villain, as it represents an aspect of the pets life that defines their characters and internal conflicts, so they need to face it, it just shouldn't be the main villain.


And that is exactly what the movie did, Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present to you, Whiskers the evil doer, yes that's her actual name.

Like legit whoever came up with the Idea of a Kitten that shoots missiles out of her tail and coughs out live grenades instead of fur balls needs a promotion, take that person to the top of the Idea board ladder.


This thing is simultaneously the cutest and the most terrifying thing I have seen. And she poses a genuine threat to the Heroes, so much so that Ace the Bat Hound needs to whip out his most arousing of Arousing speeches in order for them to even have a chance at defeating them.


And we are going to talk about Ace the bat hound, as no where is the pet-owner conflict more present than in Ace the Bat-Hound. He is the definition of a sad backstory as he was given away to the pet shelter because his family thought that he was hurting the baby in the family due to bite marks they found on their baby, which he made while trying to stop the baby from falling down the stairs.


And obviously the movie had the time of it's life with making fun of the obvious parellels between Ace and Batman.

And like Batman, Ace, while not having much Direct combat Prowess, is the leader of the team, he is the one that keeps them going and gives the rousing speeches and what not, and it is him that finally makes Krypto see the truth about being a loyal pet and the way they are related to their owners.


And if I went in depth like this about each and every fucking pet we would be here all day.


I will talk about one last one though, about the fed ex dog, to my knowledge, he appears three times in the movie, once in the beginning when Superman goes to get Krypto a friend, then when he has lost his powers and is on his way to save Superman with his team, and finally at the end, when all the super pets have taken up their super persona, and they go to fight their first villain as a team.


Why you ask? Well cause in his first scene he is said to have bit the Fed ex guy, like any normal Dog would, next he reminds Krypto of what it was like when Superman and him went on their daily walks at "walk o clock" and now, he has reached his logical conclusion which is, he ate the Fed ex guy, Jokes like this are fucking awesome, no shoving it in the audiences face, no heavy handedness just things taken to their logical conclusions.


Which brings me to, how did the pets get their powers exactly? Orange Kryptonite of course, something that as opposed to green Kryptonite, gives powers to the normal people, Which is another interesting thing the creative team did to easily introduce all these characters without shoving a billion origin stories in our faces about each of them.


Now this will only stand if there are no sequels to this movie, because, then the question of, why don't you just take a million pets and give them powers with orange Kryptonite, will always be something that is asked, and super pets is also not something that should have a sequel, but I digress.


And also this movie made me like wonder woman's invisible Jet, yes that thing, that has got to be an achievement.

So after I saw the hairless Guinea pig turn into a large monster and be defeated by a re powered Krypto, and also we get a teaser for Black Adam and his pet, I come out and wonder, why the fuck was none of this in the trailer?


All I saw in the trailer was haha, pets but superpowers, and also this dog is peeing to stop someone from talking, isn't that FUNNY??!! AREN'T YOU LAUGHING????


Which is fine if it's for kids, which like ANIMATION IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY FOR KIDS!!!! This is an Idea that needs to die, animation lends way to brighter colors and more exaggerated, expressions and movements and in general just outlandish silliness that cannot be achieved in live action, so yes, if you want to make something aimed at kids, animation is easier than live action, NOT THE OTHERWAY ROUND, Animation also lends way to exaggeration in other forms, in fact, most gore(not all) that you see in "live action" is actually CGI, a form of animation the fact that it has been tailored to look realistic doesn't take away from the fact that it is indeed animation.


What? Did you think Franchises like saw, actually cut people in half or something?


So why is it that when this same animation is rendered not to resemble reality but in a more artistic manner, it suddenly becomes for kids? Is Invincible for Kids? I mean, good luck Parenting if you think that.


And also the entire remaining marketing was filled with, oh look, we have the Rock, and Kevin Hart, isn't that great? *sigh* I don't know man, I just wish executives realized, what part of movies should and shouldn't be advertised, like this isn't even that complicated, yes this appeals to kids, but parents have to come with them! And if the parents do not feel that they can sit through what their kids are watching, because its... cringe, they aren't going to watch it, so even if you attract kids, no parent in their right mind is going to let their ten year old sit in a theatre packed with strangers.


Holy shit guys, Idk, what else to say about this situation, other than I wish it were different. But that's a given innit?


Oh and just in case this situation wasn't shit enough, we have a movie tie in that's absolute trash, thought I would point that out... and here I thought that was a thing of the past.

Comments


bottom of page