View Full Version : No Supervillians in Superman Returns; A very wise decision.
I was watching Batman Begins again, and I realized how well it works when the villians are real and human. Even Ras, a very magical/mystical based character in the comics, was portrayed in a very real, human manner.
Superman may be an alien, but in this film...hes very human (possibly more real than any previous Superman portrayal)....meaning a non-geek audience of all ages would be able to enjoy the film without being alienated (no pun intended).
I think their approach was right...build up an audience first with a very human movie (bringing Supes back to the bigscreen for the first time in 30 years)....and then break into more sci-fi based comicbook stuff for the future films (supervillians like Brainiac, Metallo etc....)
If we can objectify this decision outside the realm of being hardcore comicbook fans, it does actually seem like a very reasonable and logical apporach for the mainstream audience, who likely arent major sci-fi fans. Everyone (comicbook fans or not) know that Superman's arch nemesis has always been Lex Luthor, and that familiarity will be a good draw for them to see this flick. The great thing is both writers confirmed (via Moviehole.com) that supervillians will appear in the sequels and alot of elements relating to the sequels will be set up in Superman Returns.
So I'm finally convinced this was a wise decision, what do you guys think?
Metropolis_Man
05-15-2006, 08:18 PM
I am in agreement with you. The main point I can pick out is that most are familiar with Lex Luthor as his #1 baddy and it helps draw people in because they are already a bit familiar with the character. I also think the change in Lex's attitude will be a big help in him being a formidable advisary for Superman. Bring in Lex to begin with, and even have him in the next movie, with a more physical threat to Superman.
Yes. Also I think if this movie featured a supervillian like Brainiac or Darkseid, Lex would have taken a backseat and got outshined (turned into a pawn). That wouldnt have been good for the first film.
Zod made Lex into his b^tch in Superman II and Zod isnt even that central or that great of a Superman rogue.
I think this is also the very first time Superman and Lex have really gone at it in a major way in a motion picture. Its the first time both will likely acknowledge each other as their arch rivals and really bring it.
KrypJonian
05-15-2006, 08:26 PM
I don't think villains would have "ruined" the movie per se, but I think your insight is very logical
:up:
Metropolis_Man
05-15-2006, 08:27 PM
Yes, thats another thing I like about Returns. Lex and Superman will finally get the scenes we've been looking forward too. Lex actually poses more of a threat to Superman this time around. The physical confrontation between the two is going to be amazing. I think the whole movie will build this up, they never talk to each other directly until the end. I think it was a smart move to use Lex in this way and save the "supervillains" for later sequels.
I_Hate_U_All
05-15-2006, 08:42 PM
Superman being on a completely different level of power of course leads to him facing enemies who can match him in some way. (Lex's would be his superior intellect, since no one could think of how to utilize superman's fortress like he does.).
He may not be able to blow fireballs out his bottom but his greatest power is also the most dangerious one of all, the mind. Superman faces beings from other planets, clones, and such while The bat faces his regular group of deformed mutant humans and magicians, but Luthor is something else... he is a great manipulator and master terrorist. If you've seen M. Night's movie, Unbreakable, you'd have noticed how much Mr. Glass was based on Lex Luthor. THAT is a true supervillian, Lex has always been one, one who can think circles around you and always be a step ahead. Bashing their face in won't matter because they've already got you where they want you with a trap ready to spring...
I think we are getting a supervillian in returns. but not the hulking type, we're getting the intellectual type... what do I say to that?
BRING IT ON!
Yes I agree Mr Glass in Unbreakable was amazing, but what was great was the contrast between the two men.
Bruce Willis was a man, hidden to the world and unsure of his place, but with incredible strength and the need to do good.
My glass; an incredible intellect, but a weak fragile man who could easily break his bones....also unsure of his place in the world.
But when Willis discovered he was the hero, Glass discovered he must be the villian.
Great film and it really parallels the greatness of using Superman VS Lex for this picture.
Metropolis_Man
05-15-2006, 08:49 PM
Superman being on a completely different level of power of course leads to him facing enemies who can match him in some way. (Lex's would be his superior intellect, since no one could think of how to utilize superman's fortress like he does.).
He may not be able to blow fireballs out his bottom but his greatest power is also the most dangerious one of all, the mind. Superman faces beings from other planets, clones, and such while The bat faces his regular group of deformed mutant humans and magicians, but Luthor is something else... he is a great manipulator and master terrorist. If you've seen M. Night's movie, Unbreakable, you'd have noticed how much Mr. Glass was based on Lex Luthor. THAT is a true supervillian, Lex has always been one, one who can think circles around you and always be a step ahead. Bashing their face in won't matter because they've already got you where they want you with a trap ready to spring...
I think we are getting a supervillian in returns. but not the hulking type, we're getting the intellectual type... what do I say to that?
BRING IT ON!
Well played. I never thought about Mr. Glass being related to Luthor, but now that you mention it I see that perfectly. He caused all those disasters just to find the one man that was his exact opposite. And thats what makes Lex such a threat to Superman. Lex gets to Superman in a way that very few can.
BB had Scarecrow and Ra's. Batman is human, that is why villians like Two-Face, Joker, Riddler, Ra's (AKA, villians with no powers) work for him.
Superman needs a physical threat, and an evil continent doesn't cut it. Luthor needs muscle. Someone like Metallo would've been perfect, he could've been explained in five minutes, Luthor could've created him, and we could've had an epic battle.
theogt
05-15-2006, 09:43 PM
I agree. There's also the fact that most super villains, Superman's in particular, have ridiculous names.
I agree. There's also the fact that most super villains, Superman's in particular, have ridiculous names.
Metallo wouldn't have to be called Metallo, Corben would've been just fine.
theogt
05-15-2006, 09:49 PM
Metallo wouldn't have to be called Metallo, Corben would've been just fine.What about Larry? That's a menacing name.
Theres also the fact that Superman 1 is still the greatest of all the Superman movies so far (100% Donner) and it didnt need to rely on a supervillian either.
I think the approach of this film alone is a very real movie (well as real as you can possibly make an alien character) and alot of the sci-fi elements will likely take a backseat for the first film (thus no Supervillians). I think theyre primarily just trying to draw in a mainstream audience and bring Superman back afer 30 years. The depth of a film is always more interesting to me than the action. SR will definately have some epic (long, drawn out) action sequences but if it can capture that Superman/Luthor contrast that Unbreakable tried to do, that'd be amazing.
Metropolis_Man
05-15-2006, 09:51 PM
It'd be nice to see Metallo brought in the sequel. I think he'd work really well, we'd have a good battle with him and Supes.
Theres also the fact that Superman 1 is still the greatest of all the Superman movies so far (100% Donner) and it didnt need to rely on a supervillian either.
I think the approach of this film alone is a very real movie (well as real as you can possibly make an alien character) and alot of the sci-fi elements will likely take a backseat for the first film (thus no Supervillians). I think theyre primarily just trying to draw in a mainstream audience and bring Superman back afer 30 years. The depth of a film is always more interesting to me than the action. SR will definately have some epic (long, drawn out) action sequences but if it can capture that Superman/Luthor contrast that Unbreakable tried to do, that'd be amazing.
Why do we need a "real" Superman movie?
theogt
05-15-2006, 09:57 PM
Why do we need a "real" Superman movie?I simply prefer one. I think it makes a better movie. Otherwise it becomes too..."fake". ;)
Showtime
05-15-2006, 09:59 PM
I agree. There's also the fact that most super villains, Superman's in particular, have ridiculous names.
Yeah, Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus aka Doc Ock are really non-ridiculous names. :O
Why do we need a "real" Superman movie?
Because a film too based into the comic-book elements and sci-fi aspects may alienate the mainsteam audience. Bringing Superman to the motion picture industry after 30 years is a risky business and they definately picked the most logical route... to build on the familiarity of the Superman/Luthor classic rivarly.
There will be a truckload of people who will see this film, never having seen the Donner movies or even the animated series, but they'll likely still know who Superman and Lex Luthor are. Both are great timeless figures and thus Lex is the perfect starting point to bring Superman back.
Metropolis_Man
05-15-2006, 10:01 PM
Yeah, Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus aka Doc Ock are really non-ridiculous names. :O
Tell me you didn't just say that. I agree, haha. Lets not forget, Vulture, Rhino, Shocker, Electro. When it comes down to it, many of each heroes villains have goofy names. Its not just Superman. :)
Showtime
05-15-2006, 10:08 PM
I don't think the names of the villians would make a movie any less real, it's how the villian are potrayed that is the key. They have to be grounded into reality.
theogt
05-15-2006, 10:08 PM
Yeah, Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus aka Doc Ock are really non-ridiculous names. :OYeah, I agree that they are. Read the post. I said "MOST SUPERVILLAINS". This included those. Fortunately they rarely used those names in the movies. Ock was usually called his real name and I can't remember if the GG was ever actually called the GG.
Metropolis_Man
05-15-2006, 10:13 PM
Yeah, I agree that they are. Read the post. I said "MOST SUPERVILLAINS". This included those. Fortunately they rarely used those names in the movies. Ock was usually called his real name and I can't remember if the GG was ever actually called the GG.
I was just about to mention that about Doc Ock. I think Jameson and the guy in the Bugle made that reference once throughout the whole movie, which makes it better and there wasn't complaints. They could pull the same off with Metallo, maybe someone refrence him as metallo, but call him Corben through out the movie.
Ya I think obviously names like 'Metallo' and 'Brainiac' will be devised by the Daily Planet writers or media as names for these villians.
'Superman' was also a name devised by the media.
In the movie itself, they can call them John Corben and Milton Fine or Vril Dox.
Because a film too based into the comic-book elements and sci-fi aspects may alienate the mainsteam audience. Bringing Superman to the motion picture industry after 30 years is a risky business and they definately picked the most logical route... to build on the familiarity of the Superman/Luthor classic rivarly.
There will be a truckload of people who will see this film, never having seen the Donner movies or even the animated series, but they'll likely still know who Superman and Lex Luthor are. Both are great timeless figures and thus Lex is the perfect starting point to bring Superman back.
Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Jurrassic Park, The Matrix. Five of the highest grossing movies of all time. None of which are grounded in reality. I'll take a sci-fi/comic approach over a soap opera approach any day.
Showtime
05-15-2006, 10:22 PM
Yeah, I agree that they are. Read the post. I said "MOST SUPERVILLAINS". This included those. Fortunately they rarely used those names in the movies. Ock was usually called his real name and I can't remember if the GG was ever actually called the GG.
I wasn't playing off that, you mentioned "Superman in particular" so I was responding to that. Either way you are right about toning down the names or not amping them up.
Mentok
05-15-2006, 10:25 PM
I love Zod to death and think he should appear in this series (I doubt he will though :( )
I love his fruity get up from SM1...
http://www.chrisreevehomepage.com/images/superman2/supII-zod.jpg
But would love to see some Kryptonian battle gear this time...
http://www.billscustoms.com/images/dcu_zod1.jpg
http://www.monitorduty.com/mdarchives/NewZod2%20copy.jpg
I'll take a sci-fi/comic approach over a soap opera approach any day.
Thats fine. I wouldnt. I didnt consider Unbreakable (in relation to the whole Superman/Luthor conflict) much of a soap opera either.
With this project, I think there was alot of uncertainty about how successful it could be. I dont think they wanted to take the risk and alienate it, especially when Batman Begins did poorly in its first week too and picked up slowly from there eventually doing decent.
This was probably the safest, more logical route...and it leaves alot open for the sequels at the same time.
Mentok
05-15-2006, 10:27 PM
Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Jurrassic Park, The Matrix. Five of the highest grossing movies of all time. None of which are grounded in reality. I'll take a sci-fi/comic approach over a soap opera approach any day.
Matt, all those film are grounded in reality the same as SR is (LotR is less though).
Zakk Sabbath
05-15-2006, 10:27 PM
I am definitely looking forward to the physical confrontation between Lex & Supes too.
Anyone here watch pro wrestling? If you know who Mick Foley (aka Mankind, Dude Love, Cactus Jack) is, he wrote in one of his books that he was told that " A heel (bad guy) must be convinced he is justified in his actions, no matter how wrong" I think this applies here, which is why I had such a big problem with Hackman referring to himself as the greatest criminal mind of our time. He's supposed to believe HE'S the hero.
Matt, all those film are grounded in reality the same as SR is (LotR is less though).
The only one that is really grounded in reality is Jurassic Park.
Thats fine. I wouldnt. I didnt consider Unbreakable much of a soap opera either.
Unbreakable is story driven, but not a soap opera.
Metropolis_Man
05-15-2006, 10:30 PM
I always viewed Spider-Man as being grounded into reality.
Unbreakable is story driven, but not a soap opera.
Superman Returns may be story driven as well.
I always viewed Spider-Man as being grounded into reality.
Not really. It is set in the real world, the story isn't a realistic one.
Superman Returns may be story driven as well.
Superman Returns is a soap opera.
I always viewed Spider-Man as being grounded into reality.
It definately was, to no more an extent that SR is.....obviously some unrealistic elements (the mutant spider, Krypton etc) but they take a backseat to the real human elements of the film (especially for Spiderman 2).
Zakk Sabbath
05-15-2006, 10:34 PM
People always say Spidey was more realistic than Superman or Batman cause it's set in NYC and not Metropolis or Gotham. That's bull****
Superman Returns is a soap opera.
In your uneducated personal opinion, well unless you have one of these:
http://images.google.ca/images?q=tbn:aiC70n_Qzy5iDM:www.pennswoods.net/~rnorton/crystal%2520ball.JPG
Mentok
05-15-2006, 10:34 PM
The only one that is really grounded in reality is Jurassic Park.
Jurassic Park - Based in reality.
Spider-Man - Based in realty (so says the director)
Matrix - Based in reality (The directors wanted to keep it realistic and less futuristic/scifi *something they failed with in the 2nd and 3rd films*)
Showtime
05-15-2006, 10:35 PM
Superman Returns is a soap opera.
By this train of thought, so is Spiderman.
Metropolis_Man
05-15-2006, 10:37 PM
Superman Returns is a soap opera.
So that means that one day, after the DVD is released, I'll be able to switch it over to the Soaps Network and Superman Returns will be on there?
Morgoth
05-15-2006, 10:56 PM
I was watching Batman Begins again, and I realized how well it works when the villians are real and human. Even Ras, a very magical/mystical based character in the comics, was portrayed in a very real, human manner.
Superman may be an alien, but in this film...hes very human (possibly more real than any previous Superman portrayal)....meaning a non-geek audience of all ages would be able to enjoy the film without being alienated (no pun intended).
I think their approach was right...build up an audience first with a very human movie (bringing Supes back to the bigscreen for the first time in 30 years)....and then break into more sci-fi based comicbook stuff for the future films (supervillians like Brainiac, Metallo etc....)
If we can objectify this decision outside the realm of being hardcore comicbook fans, it does actually seem like a very reasonable and logical apporach for the mainstream audience, who likely arent major sci-fi fans. Everyone (comicbook fans or not) know that Superman's arch nemesis has always been Lex Luthor, and that familiarity will be a good draw for them to see this flick. The great thing is both writers confirmed (via Moviehole.com) that supervillians will appear in the sequels and alot of elements relating to the sequels will be set up in Superman Returns.
So I'm finally convinced this was a wise decision, what do you guys think?Who cares about all that crap, that's why comic movies will be bland if they keep that realism crap up. Superman in this day and age should be able to fight a Super villian. This movie is the same old crap.
SuperDaniel
05-15-2006, 11:43 PM
In your uneducated personal opinion, well unless you have one of these:
http://images.google.ca/images?q=tbn:aiC70n_Qzy5iDM:www.pennswoods.net/~rnorton/crystal%2520ball.JPG
BWAHAAHAHAHAHHH :up:
Who cares about all that crap, that's why comic movies will be bland if they keep that realism crap up. Superman in this day and age should be able to fight a Super villian. This movie is the same old crap.
And yet, Begins, founded on realism, was the greatest comicbook-based superhero movie made so far. With Begins and Spiderman 2 getting great reviews, it seems to be the trend in Hollywood now to go down that route....at least in the short term.
BWAHAAHAHAHAHHH :up:
Just to point out your hypocrisy
C`mon. We aleready know a lot of the story. And everything i know so far makes me feel more better regarding this movie. I like everything so far so it is very possible i`ll like this movie very much. I know I`ll watch it. But one thing is to say the movie will suck without giving it a chance to watch it. O saying the kid wont work jeust because its a kid. Its totally different. The only thing that bugs me is If the kid does throw pianos at the villains, i know i wont like it. But if he catches a roof to save his mom, then i will. But i`d still prefer him to be powerless. I anyway, its almost sure thing that i`ll like it.
Its possible that the execution of the movie won`t be good as the premise. If thats the case, wich i highly doubt it, then i`ll admit that after i watch the movie.
SuperDaniel
05-15-2006, 11:52 PM
^^ I just thought it was a good joke, thats all...it was very funny to actually see the crystal bal..Couldn`t help but laugh...
Lobster Charlie
05-15-2006, 11:56 PM
A wise decision? Sure. Keep telling yourself that one.
SUPERman needs SUPERvillains, not Luthor for the umpteenth time. I like Lex Luthor, I think he's awesome, but its time to show the kinds of supernatural threats that only Superman can protect us from.
For the first film in 30 years? That probably isnt smart.
Lobster Charlie
05-16-2006, 12:03 AM
Why not? We have the technology and talent to make some pretty bad-assed looking updated versions of Superman's villains. I mean, I'd rather see them try something new, bold, and daring instead of what seems to be a near-remake of the original!
^^ I just thought it was a good joke, thats all...it was very funny to actually see the crystal bal..Couldn`t help but laugh...
A common figure of speech is a funny joke. I wish I were like you....easily amused.
SuperDaniel
05-16-2006, 12:08 AM
Sorry if i was rude, Matt. Seriously. I just thought it was a good joke and it was funny to see the Crystal Ball. Thats it. Sorry again.
Metropolis_Man
05-16-2006, 12:10 AM
I think Superman needs Luthor and later on Supervillains, just to set things up.
Why not? We have the technology and talent to make some pretty bad-assed looking updated versions of Superman's villains. I mean, I'd rather see them try something new, bold, and daring instead of what seems to be a near-remake of the original!
Theres obviously still potential for that in the sequels, they just needed some familiar ground (the Superman VS Lex thing) to kick off the franchaise again, since thats what the general public is aware of vaguely.
The good news is that the writers basically confirmed (in the moviehole interview) that supervillians will be featured in the sequels. They just needed to kickstart things off on some familarial territory....as opposed to doing it the Tim Burton way. They also said the seeds for the sequels will be planted in this film....
Lobster Charlie
05-16-2006, 12:14 AM
Well that's good to know, I guess. I don't have a good feeling about this film, but I'll be there on opening night, with an open mind, hoping and praying for the best!
Theres obviously still potential for that in the sequels, they just needed some familiar ground (the Superman VS Lex thing) to kick off the franchaise again, since thats what the general public is aware of vaguely.
The good news is that the writers basically confirmed (in the moviehole interview) that supervillians will be featured in the sequels. They just needed to kickstart things off on some familarial territory....as opposed to doing it the Tim Burton way. They also said the seeds for the sequels will be planted in this film....
You don't need to kick things off the traditional way. Burton did it the traditional way (Batman vs Joker). Singer is doing the traditional way. Look at Nolan, he took three villians very few, if any people have ever heard of and made an outstanding movie. He took the daring route. Singer is very much so, taking the safe, boring route.
Sorry if i was rude, Matt. Seriously. I just thought it was a good joke and it was funny to see the Crystal Ball. Thats it. Sorry again.
No worries my man...but umm...listen to some David Cross, then read the crystal ball joke again ;)
SuperDaniel
05-16-2006, 12:24 AM
Oh...i guess its because i`m not american. I`m brazilian and i live in Toronto, Canada. Didn`t catch all the habits, yet ;)
Metropolis_Man
05-16-2006, 12:25 AM
You don't need to kick things off the traditional way. Burton did it the traditional way (Batman vs Joker). Singer is doing the traditional way. He took three villians very few, if any people have ever heard of and made an outstanding movie. Singer is very much so, taking the safe, boring route.
He definately is boring.
Hunter Rider
05-16-2006, 05:47 AM
BB had Scarecrow and Ra's. Batman is human, that is why villians like Two-Face, Joker, Riddler, Ra's (AKA, villians with no powers) work for him.
Superman needs a physical threat, and an evil continent doesn't cut it. Luthor needs muscle. Someone like Metallo would've been perfect, he could've been explained in five minutes, Luthor could've created him, and we could've had an epic battle.
I agree completely:up:
RedIsNotBlue
05-16-2006, 06:00 AM
After this "requel" we better see a sequel with a supervillain. We better not get some **** like Lex in an Iron Man suit.
Nivek
05-16-2006, 06:21 AM
After this "requel" we better see a sequel with a supervillain. We better not get some **** like Lex in an Iron Man suit.
Yeah, Lex wearing armor to abttle superman one on one is too Superfriends!
dark_b
05-16-2006, 06:32 AM
i was very angry and i am still that we dont have a supervillain.
but singer is making a great movie.
mind over muscle ;)
http://xe0.xanga.com/cd7b8bf46233353805766/b36065020.gif
Mr. Credible
05-16-2006, 06:38 AM
Ya I think obviously names like 'Metallo' and 'Brainiac' will be devised by the Daily Planet writers or media as names for these villians.
'Superman' was also a name devised by the media.
In the movie itself, they can call them John Corben and Milton Fine or Vril Dox.
i like how in the newest Smallville they had Jor-El call Brainiac the 'Brain-Inter-Active-Construct'
i thought that was creative.
dark_b
05-16-2006, 06:42 AM
it was very creative.
Cinemaman
05-16-2006, 09:30 AM
I was watching Batman Begins again, and I realized how well it works when the villians are real and human. Even Ras, a very magical/mystical based character in the comics, was portrayed in a very real, human manner.
Superman may be an alien, but in this film...hes very human (possibly more real than any previous Superman portrayal)....meaning a non-geek audience of all ages would be able to enjoy the film without being alienated (no pun intended).
I think their approach was right...build up an audience first with a very human movie (bringing Supes back to the bigscreen for the first time in 30 years)....and then break into more sci-fi based comicbook stuff for the future films (supervillians like Brainiac, Metallo etc....)
If we can objectify this decision outside the realm of being hardcore comicbook fans, it does actually seem like a very reasonable and logical apporach for the mainstream audience, who likely arent major sci-fi fans. Everyone (comicbook fans or not) know that Superman's arch nemesis has always been Lex Luthor, and that familiarity will be a good draw for them to see this flick. The great thing is both writers confirmed (via Moviehole.com) that supervillians will appear in the sequels and alot of elements relating to the sequels will be set up in Superman Returns.
So I'm finally convinced this was a wise decision, what do you guys think?
Agreed :up: :supes:
it was very creative.
Ya the name was. The only problem was Fine being some tool for Zod,...and Zod himself being some ghost/spirit that inhabits peoples bodies :confused:
GreenKToo
05-16-2006, 09:53 AM
I wanted a supervillian,still do,But I guess I understand the general publics need for it to be grounded in reality,but there better be one in the sequel,no excuse then.
They said there would be. Nolan also recently said that the sequel to Begins will be VERY comic-book inspired and WB has allowed them to go nuts with it.
So maybe this reality concept is just a good way to kick off the frainchaise, re-build an audience.
Milkman95
05-16-2006, 10:01 AM
Yeah, I do agree Singer and WB went the safe route with this, but I also know this was the best direction to re-introduce this character back to audiences.
That whole Luthor creating Metallo sounds too "Nuclear Man" corny, but Singer probably could have made it work. You'll get your supervillains in sequels, no doubt about that.........
Metropolis_Man
05-16-2006, 10:04 AM
They said there would be. Nolan also recently said that the sequel to Begins will be VERY comic-book inspired and WB has allowed them to go nuts with it.
So maybe this reality concept is just a good way to kick off the frainchaise, re-build an audience.
I think its a smart move. Make the first movie more grounded into reality, and bring in the supervillains later on.
GreenKToo
05-16-2006, 10:06 AM
man,it will be so awesome to see,with what they can do now a days.I'll be happy with the first till then.
Plus Superman VS Lex is CLASSIC. Everyone knows Lex Luthor is Superman's arch nemesis (though prior movies never portrayed the two as two sides of the same coin and arch rivals.)
If the Burton/Schumaccer films never came out in recent years, its obvious that Batman Begins would have started with The Joker...the most identifiable Batman villian.
Metropolis_Man
05-16-2006, 10:12 AM
I think that helps as well. It will help the movie by putting Lex in there as the main villain. The average person could identify Lex Luthor as Supermans villain and probably not many others. This will bring the audience in with familiar characters that would lead to the sequels having what every fanboy wants. SUPERVILLAIN.
GreenKToo
05-16-2006, 10:18 AM
yes,and plus,their will be hints through out the movie of villians,so the audience will know,and understand, what to expect for the sequel(s)
Lightning54SC
05-16-2006, 10:20 AM
like as usual from singer... he always leaves us a cookie in movies..... just watch and wait is all i have to say !
dpm07
05-16-2006, 12:21 PM
BB had Scarecrow and Ra's. Batman is human, that is why villians like Two-Face, Joker, Riddler, Ra's (AKA, villians with no powers) work for him.
Superman needs a physical threat, and an evil continent doesn't cut it. Luthor needs muscle. Someone like Metallo would've been perfect, he could've been explained in five minutes, Luthor could've created him, and we could've had an epic battle.
Excellent Post. :up: :up:
I completely agree with everything you said. There's no reason there can't be a great story and a great supervillain battle to climax the film. I think Singer dropped the ball with this, and while the film will probably have a strong opening, I don't think it will hold up under repeated viewing because of a lack of action. People I have talked to in the mainstream have already said that they are disappointed Superman's not throwing down with anyone.
Cinemaman
05-16-2006, 12:34 PM
I still think New Krypton is better idea than supevillian.
The main question is how Superman will stop NK?
There is no answer. So that is why it looks like very intersting task for Superman.
Octoberist
05-16-2006, 01:09 PM
Either way, Singer will truely drop the ball if there is no super-POWERED villian in the sequel. And no, I'm over the idea of Zod. There's more villians out there to use.
raybia
05-16-2006, 01:45 PM
I was watching Batman Begins again, and I realized how well it works when the villians are real and human. Even Ras, a very magical/mystical based character in the comics, was portrayed in a very real, human manner.
Superman may be an alien, but in this film...hes very human (possibly more real than any previous Superman portrayal)....meaning a non-geek audience of all ages would be able to enjoy the film without being alienated (no pun intended).
I think their approach was right...build up an audience first with a very human movie (bringing Supes back to the bigscreen for the first time in 30 years)....and then break into more sci-fi based comicbook stuff for the future films (supervillians like Brainiac, Metallo etc....)
If we can objectify this decision outside the realm of being hardcore comicbook fans, it does actually seem like a very reasonable and logical apporach for the mainstream audience, who likely arent major sci-fi fans. Everyone (comicbook fans or not) know that Superman's arch nemesis has always been Lex Luthor, and that familiarity will be a good draw for them to see this flick. The great thing is both writers confirmed (via Moviehole.com) that supervillians will appear in the sequels and alot of elements relating to the sequels will be set up in Superman Returns.
So I'm finally convinced this was a wise decision, what do you guys think?
Yes indeed. God forbid that we have a Supervillian as a formidable enemy to a Superhero in a Super hero movie like Superman who is essentially considered the premier God-like Granddaddy of all Superheros. When I go see Superhero movies I always liketo know ahead of time that there is no possible way that the hero will be defeated. It makes it less stressful that way.
I think its better to have a non- superpowered villian like Luthor even though he has been the main villian in 4 out of the last 5 Superman movies.
Even though he's human, Luthor will be able to use kryptonite to subdue him rather than using force.
I know that is always much more visually appealing, at least for me, when I'm watching Action/Adventure type movies.
A no-holds barr between two superpower entities is really overrated anyway. Thats why I prefer movies like Brokeback Mountain over Bruce Lee/Martial Art flicks.
Hopefully the sequel we'll feature Luthor again as the main villian along with his Kryptonite.
For some reason, exploiting Superman's weakness to Kryptonite never seems to get predictable.
Maybe the 2nd sequel can feature Toyman, with of course Luthor as a companion. He can lend his Kryptonite to Toyman to use.
Man, I can't wait. :)
:rolleyes: nerds...
You do realize this film is also coming out for an audience (whom alot havent seen the Donner/Lester flicks of the 70s/80s). It was 20-30 years ago.
They have to restart on familiar territory to kick off the franchaise again. Why would it be logical to use a random comicbook Superman rogue when Lex Luthor is Superman's primary nemesis and the most idenitifable villian to Superman....in the media? Even for people who never saw those movies, they know that Lex is Superman's arch enemy, common knowledge.
Both of them are so tied together in pop culture and history, It'd be almost a crime not to use Luthor (and I guarantee if they didnt, fanboys would be complaining too).
Man, I can't wait. :)
LOL! Great post, Raybia.
I have to say I find it rather amusing the way all this is unfolding... for a long time many people on the forum insisted that the film would see Superman confronting some sort of superfoe, with fevered talks about battles with Brainiac or Metallo.
Now we know that isn't the case the forum is full of people desperately trying to rationalise away their disappointment...
"No, it's not a bad thing that there isn't a supervillain in this film. No, actually, it's a good thing! Yeah, it's good, because if we get one in the sequel it'll make it even better! Yeah, that's it. Boy, I can't wait until 2009!"
LOL! :)
RedIsNotBlue
05-16-2006, 02:12 PM
:rolleyes: nerds...
You do realize this film is also coming out for an audience (whom alot havent seen the Donner/Lester flicks of the 70s/80s). It was 20-30 years ago.
They have to restart on familiar territory to kick off the franchaise again. Why would it be logical to use a random comicbook Superman rogue when Lex Luthor is Superman's primary nemesis and the most idenitifable villian to Superman....in the media? Even for people who never saw those movies, they know that Lex is Superman's arch enemy, common knowledge.
Both of them are so tied together in pop culture and history, It'd be almost a crime not to use Luthor (and I guarantee if they didnt, fanboys would be complaining too).
Well people weren't really expecting this requel idea of Singer's. But I think they could have had Supes bring "something" or "someone" back with him on his trip to Krypton.
LOL! Great post, Raybia.
I have to say I find it rather amusing the way all this is unfolding... for a long time many people on the forum insisted that the film would see Superman confronting some sort of superfoe, with fevered talks about battles with Brainiac or Metallo.
Now we know that isn't the case the forum is full of people desperately trying to rationalise away their disappointment...
"No, it's not a bad thing that there isn't a supervillain in this film. No, actually, it's a good thing! Yeah, it's good, because if we get one in the sequel it'll make it even better! Yeah, that's it. Boy, I can't wait until 2009!"
It was never like that. For me personally, I care more about story driven stuff than action.... Its just my personal preference.
Action is good but Ive seen enough movies that are purely action based but fail because of the writing. The writing is number one for me, I wana be able to believe that this character is the last son of Krypton.
Ive never downed a movie before for having not enough action, but Im very critical of the story, dialogue and acting especially.
raybia
05-16-2006, 02:26 PM
:rolleyes: nerds...
You do realize this film is also coming out for an audience (whom alot havent seen the Donner/Lester flicks of the 70s/80s). It was 20-30 years ago.
They have to restart on familiar territory to kick off the franchaise again. Why would it be logical to use a random comicbook Superman rogue when Lex Luthor is Superman's primary nemesis and the most idenitifable villian to Superman....in the media? Even for people who never saw those movies, they know that Lex is Superman's arch enemy, common knowledge.
Both of them are so tied together in pop culture and history, It'd be almost a crime not to use Luthor (and I guarantee if they didnt, fanboys would be complaining too).
Restart? Please.
Singer deserves this criticism when he decided to keep this movie within the continuity of the Donner/Lester movies.
I understand what you are saying and I agree with most of it, and that is why I expected a complete Re-start just like BB along with a re-imagined Luthor without the baggage of the Donner version.
I may be a nerd (I actually like the term Fanboy better) but 2 hours of seeing Superman display superhuman feats is...borrringg!
For a superpower character like Superman, after 50 + years of live movies and T.V. shows, its time for this man to be put through the Gauntlet by matching him up with an formidable opponent both phyisically and mentally.
The villian also known as the Antagonist, is usually the champion of the counter premise. The Villain is often the center of evil in the story. It is from him that the conflict arises.
Unlike the Hero, however, the villain doesn’t have to be a person. It can be a force of nature, or merely something as abstract as life itself. The Villain can be the Hero’s insecurities, it can be an addiction, it can be poverty, or an illness.
The Villain should always have the upper hand until the climax of the story. If the Villain isn’t winning, you lose the conflict.
The Villain is the pull, the driving force behind the conflict. You need the Villain to be powerful. The Villain has to put the hero on the ropes. The Villain can never show weakness in the story until the climax. Otherwise, people will lose interest.
The Villain must be superior to the hero in some way. The Villain was winning up until the end. In TERMINATOR 2, the T-1000 was an unstoppable force right up to the last scene. In Jaws, the shark was relentlessly kicking Roy Schieder’s scrawny butt until he got lucky.
Nobody cares if your hero can beat up a weakling. That isn’t heroic. The Villain has to be superior in a way that matters. If not brawn, then brains. If not brains, then skill. But the Villain must be superior.
If the movie has a Weak Villain then the story will be weak. That is what I'm predicting for this movie unfortunately.
The Villain should always have the upper hand until the climax of the story. If the Villain isn’t winning, you lose the conflict.
The Villain is the pull, the driving force behind the conflict. You need the Villain to be powerful. The Villain has to put the hero on the ropes. The Villain can never show weakness in the story until the climax. Otherwise, people will lose interest.
Buddy, you missed the point totally. A villian should have an upper hand....yes, but it need not be physical stength. Luthor's upper hand over Superman is his intellect. Supes and Lex are polar opposites of each other but while Superman has the brawn, Lex has the brains.
The upper hand is reached in the movie, Superman is supposed to die thanks to Lex, or come close to it. Lex has always managed to be one step ahead of the MOS regardless of his physical strength. He has intellect.
Its just like how Batman has 'agility' and brains to fight metahumans with way more raw physical power than him....
And this isnt totally within the continuity of the Donner movies. Again, recent interviews by Singer claim that only the first film is used as the vague history origin (and even within that there are noticable contradictions).
One we've discovered so far is Stephan Bender's young Clark discovers the ship and the FOS crystal at a younger age than Jeff East. That whole Donner history is likely updated....... meaning its a vague/loose sequel to STM, not a direct one.
dpm07
05-16-2006, 02:41 PM
Restart? Please.
Singer deserves this criticism when he decided to keep this movie within the continuity of the Donner/Lester movies.
I understand what you are saying and I agree with most of it, and that is why I expected a complete Re-start just like BB along with a re-imagined Luthor without the baggage of the Donner version.
I may be a nerd (I actually like the term Fanboy better) but 2 hours of seeing Superman display superhuman feats is...borrringg!
Will a superpower character like Superman, after 50 + years of live movies and T.V. shows, its time to be this man through the Gauntlet by matching him up with an formidable opponent both phyisically and mentally.
The villian also known as the Antagonist, is usually the champion of the counter premise. The Villain is often the center of evil in the story. It is from him that the conflict arises.
Unlike the Hero, however, the villain doesn’t have to be a person. It can be a force of nature, or merely something as abstract as life itself. The Villain can be the Hero’s insecurities, it can be an addiction, it can be poverty, or an illness.
The Villain should always have the upper hand until the climax of the story. If the Villain isn’t winning, you lose the conflict.
The Villain is the pull, the driving force behind the conflict. You need the Villain to be powerful. The Villain has to put the hero on the ropes. The Villain can never show weakness in the story until the climax. Otherwise, people will lose interest.
The Villain must be superior to the hero in some way. The Villain was winning up until the end. In TERMINATOR 2, the T-1000 was an unstoppable force right up to the last scene. In Jaws, the shark was relentlessly kicking Roy Schieder’s scrawny butt until he got lucky.
Nobody cares if your hero can beat up a weakling. That isn’t heroic. The Villain has to be superior in a way that matters. If not brawn, then brains. If not brains, then skill. But the Villain must be superior.
If the movie has a Weak Villain then the story will be weak. That is what I'm predicting for this movie unfortunately.
That was a great post, and very well presented. You really provided a sound assessment. :up:
I agree with everything you said.
raybia
05-16-2006, 05:08 PM
Buddy, you missed the point totally. A villian should have an upper hand....yes, but it need not be physical stength. Luthor's upper hand over Superman is his intellect. Supes and Lex are polar opposites of each other but while Superman has the brawn, Lex has the brains.
The upper hand is reached in the movie, Superman is supposed to die thanks to Lex, or come close to it. Lex has always managed to be one step ahead of the MOS regardless of his physical strength. He has intellect.
Yes I agree but what you are describing is exactly Superman: The Movie, a film made in 1978.
Its time to raise the bar. There is no reason why Singer couldn't have given Luthor some muscle in the form of Braniac or some other Superpower character.
In fact based on the character from DC, this much in tune with Luthor's nature; to use and manipulate characters physically more powerful than himself to use against Superman and for his own agenda.
Of course I don't want a two hour fist fight of mindless action. I'm like you as I also want a great story but this could be enhanced by having a great antagonist which would result in a great protangonist as well.
(For a movie that does this REALLY WELL, see Gladiator. A sci-fi movie that does this well is Empire Strikes Back, A comic book movie that does this very well is the Matrix. Yes technically its not but for all pratical purposes it is.)
At the very least, there could have been some foreshadowing by having "something" come back from Krypton along with Superman. Donner did this perfectly in the first filim with Zod.
bubbadoom
05-16-2006, 10:44 PM
Since this is a relaunch, I guess it's okay that we only get Luthor, but BATMAN BEGINS did go with a different villain than Joker, so someone new would have been fine by me. I just hope we get some SUPER villains in the sequels, and not Luthor over and over and over...
NotFadeAway
05-16-2006, 10:50 PM
I disagree with this post!!!!!!
The Caped Knight
05-16-2006, 11:13 PM
I was watching Batman Begins again, and I realized how well it works when the villians are real and human. Even Ras, a very magical/mystical based character in the comics, was portrayed in a very real, human manner.
Superman may be an alien, but in this film...hes very human (possibly more real than any previous Superman portrayal)....meaning a non-geek audience of all ages would be able to enjoy the film without being alienated (no pun intended).
I think their approach was right...build up an audience first with a very human movie (bringing Supes back to the bigscreen for the first time in 30 years)....and then break into more sci-fi based comicbook stuff for the future films (supervillians like Brainiac, Metallo etc....)
If we can objectify this decision outside the realm of being hardcore comicbook fans, it does actually seem like a very reasonable and logical apporach for the mainstream audience, who likely arent major sci-fi fans. Everyone (comicbook fans or not) know that Superman's arch nemesis has always been Lex Luthor, and that familiarity will be a good draw for them to see this flick. The great thing is both writers confirmed (via Moviehole.com) that supervillians will appear in the sequels and alot of elements relating to the sequels will be set up in Superman Returns.
So I'm finally convinced this was a wise decision, what do you guys think?
I agree with your opinion. Not to mention Lex Luthor is SUPERMAN's number One arch nemesis . so it's only logical for SUPERMAN to face off against his number one enemy Lex Luthor.
WormyT
05-16-2006, 11:14 PM
I was watching Batman Begins again, and I realized how well it works when the villians are real and human. Even Ras, a very magical/mystical based character in the comics, was portrayed in a very real, human manner.
Superman may be an alien, but in this film...hes very human (possibly more real than any previous Superman portrayal)....meaning a non-geek audience of all ages would be able to enjoy the film without being alienated (no pun intended).
I think their approach was right...build up an audience first with a very human movie (bringing Supes back to the bigscreen for the first time in 30 years)....and then break into more sci-fi based comicbook stuff for the future films (supervillians like Brainiac, Metallo etc....)
If we can objectify this decision outside the realm of being hardcore comicbook fans, it does actually seem like a very reasonable and logical apporach for the mainstream audience, who likely arent major sci-fi fans. Everyone (comicbook fans or not) know that Superman's arch nemesis has always been Lex Luthor, and that familiarity will be a good draw for them to see this flick. The great thing is both writers confirmed (via Moviehole.com) that supervillians will appear in the sequels and alot of elements relating to the sequels will be set up in Superman Returns.
So I'm finally convinced this was a wise decision, what do you guys think?
I disagree.
After 4 superman movies we've already had Luthor 3 times already!
I think Batman Begins is a bad comparrison as it in itself proves one can make a movie with a killer origin story and manage to squeeze in a pack of villains PLUS set up a future villain with ease. Also Batman Begins plot is a perfect merging of some of the finest Batman comic stories.
Superman on the other hand drops yet another log of poo onto it's source material. Why don't they respect Superman?
After 20 year absence and the horrible taste of Nucleur Man and Richard Pryar in our heads, and with countless great superman comic book stories the screenwriters have to choose from we get a movie thats a tribute to the cheesy seventies version and without a single hard hitter in the entire feature.
Forget about Superman throwing a SINGLE punch in this whole movie. Instead, he'll get stabbed with a piece of rock held by a human he could easily crush. Nevermind the fact that the military would bomb the hell out of anyone like Luthor who tried to destroy the world. Thats where heavy hitters like Metallo, Parasite, Darkseid could have come in (as the Muscle Luthor needs). But they decided to add the god awful torture chamber kid plot instead of actually giving us a REAL superman movie that (like Batman Begins) shows the non-fans what it is us fans really read and love about this character.
Munchkin or Supervillain?...........................let me think....................................I mean have you SEEN the little guy.......hes sooo cute...........hes hasn't existed in the history of superman lore but the little guy is adorable I gotta say.
Well theres only 72 years worth of supermans stories and characters. But I guess they had to make MORE stuff up like they did in the 70's 80's movies.
NotFadeAway
05-16-2006, 11:19 PM
I disagree.
After 4 superman movies with we've already had Luthor 3 times already!
I think Batman Begins is a bad comparrison as it in itself proves one can make a movie with a killer origin story and manage to squeeze in a pack of villains PLUS set up a future villain with ease. Also Batman Begins plot is a perfect merging of some of the finest Batman comic stories.
Superman on the other hand drops yet another log of poo onto it's source material. Why don't they respect Superman?
After 20 year absence and the horrible taste of Nucleur Man and Richard Pryar in our heads, and with countless great superman comic book stories the screenwriters have to choose from we get a movie thats a tribute to the cheesy seventies version and without a single hard hitter in the entire feature. Forget about Superman throwing a SINGLE punch in this whole movie. Instead, he'll get stabbed with a piece of rock held by a human he could easily crush. Nevermind the fact that the military would bomb the hell out of anyone who tried to destroy the world. Thats where heavy hitters like Metallo, Parasite, Darkseid come in, or could have come in had they decided to lose the godawful torture chamber kid plot and actually gave us a REAL superman movie that (like Batman Begins) shows the non-fans what it is us fans really read and love about this character.
Munchkin or Supervillain?...........................let me think....................................I mean have you SEEN the little guy.......hes sooo cute...........hes hasn't existed in the history of superman lore but the little guy is adorable I gotta say.
YEA Thats what Im talking about baby.........Come back at that ANYONE I dare you!!! TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO DISREGARD THAT!!!
I know its hard to get past your blind love of Singer, but BRING IT!!!!
raybia
05-19-2006, 09:30 AM
I disagree.
After 4 superman movies we've already had Luthor 3 times already!
I think Batman Begins is a bad comparrison as it in itself proves one can make a movie with a killer origin story and manage to squeeze in a pack of villains PLUS set up a future villain with ease. Also Batman Begins plot is a perfect merging of some of the finest Batman comic stories.
Superman on the other hand drops yet another log of poo onto it's source material. Why don't they respect Superman?
After 20 year absence and the horrible taste of Nucleur Man and Richard Pryar in our heads, and with countless great superman comic book stories the screenwriters have to choose from we get a movie thats a tribute to the cheesy seventies version and without a single hard hitter in the entire feature.
Forget about Superman throwing a SINGLE punch in this whole movie. Instead, he'll get stabbed with a piece of rock held by a human he could easily crush. Nevermind the fact that the military would bomb the hell out of anyone like Luthor who tried to destroy the world. Thats where heavy hitters like Metallo, Parasite, Darkseid could have come in (as the Muscle Luthor needs). But they decided to add the god awful torture chamber kid plot instead of actually giving us a REAL superman movie that (like Batman Begins) shows the non-fans what it is us fans really read and love about this character.
Munchkin or Supervillain?...........................let me think....................................I mean have you SEEN the little guy.......hes sooo cute...........hes hasn't existed in the history of superman lore but the little guy is adorable I gotta say.
Well theres only 72 years worth of supermans stories and characters. But I guess they had to make MORE stuff up like they did in the 70's 80's movies.
BEST POST EVER!
Octoberist
05-19-2006, 11:41 AM
I understand how people are upset that they're no Super-Powered villains. But I'm over it only because if I get discourage over Superman now, then I won't a comic book movie to look foward to this year. I'm almost done with X3, with its various rumors :(
Lightning54SC
05-19-2006, 11:44 AM
im with everyone who agrees about what Raybia said perfect choice of words couldnt have said it better.... if the film does well i think we will see a SUPERVILLAIN in the sequal
raybia
05-19-2006, 11:48 AM
I understand how people are upset that they're no Super-Powered villains. But I'm over it only because if I get discourage over Superman now, then I won't a comic book movie to look foward to this year. I'm almost done with X3, with its various rumors :(
I know exactly what you mean but at the same time we shouldn't condemn this film because it has no Supervillian and its not a live action TAS.
It is what it is: AN UNOFFICIAL SEQUEL TO SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE.
There is actually nothing wrong with that for it will make for a great trilogy that Donner's movie deserves.
Hopefully this movie will be a success and WB will be willing to distance the future sequels from the Original and begin to introduce elements of all the great Superman comic book stories from the past 10 to 20 years. (If not I will really be saddened.)
Lightning54SC
05-19-2006, 11:50 AM
I know exactly what you mean but at the same time we shouldn't condemn this film because it has no Supervillian and its not a live action TAS.
It is what it is: AN UNOFFICIAL SEQUEL TO SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE.
There is actually nothing wrong with that it will make for a great trilogy that Donner's movie deserved.
Hopefully this movie will be a success and WB will be willing to distance the future sequels from the Original and begin to introduce elements of all the great Superman comic books from the past 10 to 20 years. (If not I will really be saddened.)
if they dont im dropping superman liek a bad habit and moving on the batman once and for all
Milkman95
05-19-2006, 12:01 PM
Having Luthor back was the safest way to bring the character back. Same with the setting of the story and the film.
You'll have your corny and ridiculous supervillains in the sequel - this film's goal is to RE-ESTABLISH the character and make him relatable again. Why can't people understand this?
Hunter Rider
05-19-2006, 12:03 PM
Having Luthor back was the safest way to bring the character back. Same with the setting of the story and the film.
You'll have your corny and ridiculous supervillains in the sequel - this film's goal is to RE-ESTABLISH the character and make him relatable again. Why can't people understand this?
I thought the whole world knew Superman ? what was to stop Lex having a bodyguard like Metallo instead of two comedy goof sidekicks > now they are ridiculous and i guess your gonna hate the sequels
raybia
05-19-2006, 12:16 PM
You'll have your corny and ridiculous supervillains in the sequel - this film's goal is to RE-ESTABLISH the character and make him relatable again. Why can't people understand this?
Are you serious?
A villian who happens to be Superpowered will be no more corny and ridiculous than Superman himself. AND NO MORE CORNY THAN THE YAHOOS THAT LUTHOR IS SURROUNDING HIMSELF WITH IN THIS MOVIE.
And if it that supervillian does come across this way then you can thank the Director and the writer for that.
What a riduculous post.
Surprising coming from you. :confused:
ChrisBaleBatman
05-19-2006, 12:23 PM
I dunno. The biggest question about all this is: Does the hero NEED a physical challenge?
With today's CGI.....the fight scenes in SPIDEY 2, between Spidey and Doc Ock, were incredible. So...will people feel cheated out if Superman doesn't have an all out brawl with someone of equal strength?
I dunno.....I think he can still have a successful flick all with Lex carrying the film villiany.....but with films like SPIDEY 2 and X3, which look damn action packed with fight scenes and showdowns...all with superpowered beings anteing up the CGI beef, I dunno....it could be an issue.
Octoberist
05-19-2006, 12:27 PM
Singer decided to create a very oldschool movie. Very back to basics. When I first heard that it Luthor by himself, I initially thought Superman would be fighting a..robot or something.
I think people today are so saturated by modern comic book movies that they are expecting..more. It's not a bad thing. It's just that the standards now are different.
I think Singer has created a compelling enough Luthor that we don't mind so much that he doesn't have any powers. It's always been the brain vs. brawn analogy with lex...that's why it's great.
However, if Singer decides to include Zod or Luthor again in the sequel, I will cry because there's more to the mythos than those two rogues..
raybia
05-19-2006, 12:29 PM
I dunno. The biggest question about all this is: Does the hero NEED a physical challenge?
With today's CGI.....the fight scenes in SPIDEY 2, between Spidey and Doc Ock, were incredible. So...will people feel cheated out if Superman doesn't have an all out brawl with someone of equal strength?
I dunno.....I think he can still have a successful flick all with Lex carrying the film villiany.....but with films like SPIDEY 2 and X3, which look damn action packed with fight scenes and showdowns...all with superpowered beings anteing up the CGI beef, I dunno....it could be an issue.
Both Doc Ock and Green Goblin were both intellectual and physical challenges for Spider-man.
Superman should have the same where Luthor in the brains and one of his pawns being the muscle.
If Spider-man has it there absolutely no reason why Supes shouldn't.
This is like owning a Lambrigini and refusing to drive it any higher than 65 mph.
Octoberist
05-19-2006, 12:46 PM
It doesn't MEAN the movie won't be good. It's just that we won't be able to see certain feats that Superman can do a villian ala the 90s cartoon.
The sequel needs brainaic or metello or whomever. The public are not familiar with the Superman rogue gallery. I think that's why some people think Superman is boring because they think all he has is Luthor. Not true at all.
raybia
05-19-2006, 12:48 PM
It doesn't the movie won't be good. It's just that we won't be able to see certain feats that Superman can do a villian ala the 90s cartoon.
The sequel needs brainaic or metello or whomever. The public are not familiar with the Superman rogue gallery. I think that's why some people think Superman is boring because they think all he has is Luthor. Not true at all.
Agree
Octoberist
05-19-2006, 12:50 PM
forgive me for the typos. In a hurry to leave :)
M.O.Steel
05-19-2006, 01:41 PM
Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Jurrassic Park, The Matrix. Five of the highest grossing movies of all time. None of which are grounded in reality. I'll take a sci-fi/comic approach over a soap opera approach any day.
umm...titanic? gone with the wind? the sound of music? Ten commandments?
ChrisBaleBatman
05-19-2006, 03:06 PM
Singer decided to create a very oldschool movie. Very back to basics. When I first heard that it Luthor by himself, I initially thought Superman would be fighting a..robot or something.
I think people today are so saturated by modern comic book movies that they are expecting..more. It's not a bad thing. It's just that the standards now are different.
I think Singer has created a compelling enough Luthor that we don't mind so much that he doesn't have any powers. It's always been the brain vs. brawn analogy with lex...that's why it's great.
However, if Singer decides to include Zod or Luthor again in the sequel, I will cry because there's more to the mythos than those two rogues..
Agreed. I'm a little worried about how audiences will take a comic book movie where there's not exactly a conventional showdown. I do think it WILL work though.
Both Doc Ock and Green Goblin were both intellectual and physical challenges for Spider-man.
Superman should have the same where Luthor in the brains and one of his pawns being the muscle.
If Spider-man has it there absolutely no reason why Supes shouldn't.
This is like owning a Lambrigini and refusing to drive it any higher than 65 mph.
I see what you mean, and although I disagree....I do understand.
The sequel needs brainaic or metello or whomever. The public are not familiar with the Superman rogue gallery. I think that's why some people think Superman is boring because they think all he has is Luthor. Not true at all.
Yeah, most people do think it begins and ends with lex.....but your right, Superman's got a pretty nice rogue gallery. Not as good as Bats, but a pretty good group of villians. Metallo is one that would be incredible onscreen.
Metropolis_Man
05-19-2006, 03:09 PM
Yeah, most people do think it begins and ends with lex.....but your right, Superman's got a pretty nice rogue gallery. Not as good as Bats, but a pretty good group of villians. Metallo is one that would be incredible onscreen.
I'd definately like to see Metallo and Superman battle it out in one of the sequels. It would be great to see them duking it out on the streets of metropolis.
WormyT
05-19-2006, 03:34 PM
However, if Singer decides to include Zod or Luthor again in the sequel, I will cry because there's more to the mythos than those two rogues..
I will cry too.
:(
RedIsNotBlue
05-19-2006, 03:40 PM
I think the ones who are upset (like me) have the "been there done that" feeling. I mean we got this freaky hybrid I call a requel. Its not that I don't want Lex against Superman its that I want more than JUST lex. Superman has an interesting and extensive villain list and we need to see them brought to the screen. And please Singer...we better not get any ****ing "original" villains in the future.
Metropolis_Man
05-19-2006, 03:43 PM
No more Zod please. Was great in the originals, but I don't want to see it now.
The Guard
05-19-2006, 03:45 PM
I have no doubt we will see other villains. But you don't just START a Superman mythos telling with one. Luthor is his arch-enemy. It's only fitting that he stand (mostly alone) in SUPERMAN RETURNS.
Metropolis_Man
05-19-2006, 03:47 PM
I have no doubt we will see other villains. But you don't just START a Superman mythos telling with one. Luthor is his arch-enemy. It's only fitting that he stand (mostly alone) in SUPERMAN RETURNS.
Well said. Its also in best intrest to have him because people are familiar with him as the villain. There will be a lot going on in this movie, and it probably would've taken away from the movie as a whole. As for sequels, bring on Metallo, Bizzaro, Braniac, Parasite, anyone.
RedIsNotBlue
05-19-2006, 03:47 PM
Well you have to accept that this is a remake to a point. A reintroduction.
dpm07
05-19-2006, 05:28 PM
I don't know why many people say we need a "reintroduction" or need to be reacquainted with Superman. He's one of the most iconic and mythic figures in popular culture and the 20th century on into the present.
Everyone knows who he is. I've given presentations on superheroes and symbols in culture, and the Superman symbol is one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.
I think when people say that there needs to be a reintroducing of the character to today's generation, it's a cop out. Anyone who has a Forrest Gump intellect would know who Superman is.
Singer chose this particular approach, and I really don't care for his direction based on what I have seen so far with regard to this film. Unfortunately, this is what we are getting. While we could have had more with today's technology or at least something different, we're getting a requel.
NotFadeAway
05-20-2006, 11:00 AM
I still think New Krypton is better idea than supevillian.
The main question is how Superman will stop NK?
There is no answer. So that is why it looks like very intersting task for Superman.
why doesnt that suprise me....................
CrypticOne
05-20-2006, 03:26 PM
I was watching Batman Begins again, and I realized how well it works when the villians are real and human. Even Ras, a very magical/mystical based character in the comics, was portrayed in a very real, human manner.
Superman may be an alien, but in this film...hes very human (possibly more real than any previous Superman portrayal)....meaning a non-geek audience of all ages would be able to enjoy the film without being alienated (no pun intended).
I think their approach was right...build up an audience first with a very human movie (bringing Supes back to the bigscreen for the first time in 30 years)....and then break into more sci-fi based comicbook stuff for the future films (supervillians like Brainiac, Metallo etc....)
If we can objectify this decision outside the realm of being hardcore comicbook fans, it does actually seem like a very reasonable and logical apporach for the mainstream audience, who likely arent major sci-fi fans. Everyone (comicbook fans or not) know that Superman's arch nemesis has always been Lex Luthor, and that familiarity will be a good draw for them to see this flick. The great thing is both writers confirmed (via Moviehole.com) that supervillians will appear in the sequels and alot of elements relating to the sequels will be set up in Superman Returns.
So I'm finally convinced this was a wise decision, what do you guys think?
Yeah, I agree with you. It makes more sense and it would be more "human," I think it will attract more audience. Well said.
all of superman other villians are nothing when compared to Lex luthor. Mettallo would break his arm if he punched pre-crisis supes[the one in returns], Toy-man [lol],Braniac is a geek in shorts with no motive, and Darkseid no longer serves as a threat to superman in the comics anymore. Luthor is the bread and butter of supes "villians", and he is a villain we all might root for now and then. The public wants to see luthor VS. superman, not superman vs some nobody.
Milkman95
05-20-2006, 03:50 PM
I don't know why many people say we need a "reintroduction" or need to be reacquainted with Superman. He's one of the most iconic and mythic figures in popular culture and the 20th century on into the present.
Because he's been gone for 20 years? Heck, WB "reintroduced" Batman after only 7 years. Even though Superman is well known, he's not on movie screens.
Everyone knows who he is. I've given presentations on superheroes and symbols in culture, and the Superman symbol is one of the most recognizable symbols in the world.
Okay, so he's recognizable, so what?
I think when people say that there needs to be a reintroducing of the character to today's generation, it's a cop out. Anyone who has a Forrest Gump intellect would know who Superman is.
True, everybody knows OF HIM, but that really doesn't mean much. I know who Da Vinci is as well, but that doesn't mean I know him.
Singer chose this particular approach, and I really don't care for his direction based on what I have seen so far with regard to this film. Unfortunately, this is what we are getting. While we could have had more with today's technology or at least something different, we're getting a requel.
Well, I still believe this was the best way to go.
-Can't do another origin film, we've got it with SV and Donner nailed it the first time. We just had it with Batman anyway.
-Doing a stand alone different film not related to the others probably wouldn't have worked either - too different from what they've seen in the past.
-Having a supervillain doesn't solve anything either - it definitely doesn't guarantee a good film. They can be very corny and ridiculous. Luthor is familiar territory, it was a good move.
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 03:53 PM
-Doing a stand alone different film not related to the others probably wouldn't have worked either - too different from what they've seen in the past.
But no one remembers the past from what you were saying before
-Having a supervillain doesn't solve anything either - it definitely doesn't guarantee a good film. They can be very corny and ridiculous. Luthor is familiar territory, it was a good move.
I agree that Lex should be there but i see no reason he couldn't have had Metallo as his weapon/bodyguard against Superman
Milkman95
05-20-2006, 03:57 PM
But no one remembers the past from what you were saying before
Well, Luthor is on SV, he's familiar. He was also a central character in the Animated Series. I wasn't specifically talking about Hackman's Luthor........
I agree that Lex should be there but i see no reason he couldn't have had Metallo as his weapon/bodyguard against Superman
True, but that's too "Nuclear Man" for my taste. It's better off to save the corny supervillains for the sequel - here's hoping Kal-El brings something back to Earth from his travels..........
raybia
05-20-2006, 03:58 PM
Because he's been gone for 20 years? Heck, WB "reintroduced" Batman after only 7 years. Even though Superman is well known, he's not on movie screens.
Okay, so he's recognizable, so what?
True, everybody knows OF HIM, but that really doesn't mean much. I know who Da Vinci is as well, but that doesn't mean I know him.
Well, I still believe this was the best way to go.
-Can't do another origin film, we've got it with SV and Donner nailed it the first time. We just had it with Batman anyway.
-Doing a stand alone different film not related to the others probably wouldn't have worked either - too different from what they've seen in the past.
-Having a supervillain doesn't solve anything either - it definitely doesn't guarantee a good film. They can be very corny and ridiculous. Luthor is familiar territory, it was a good move.
I have no proble with Luthor being the main villian I just think its mistake to not feature a supervillian as well as muscle so the audience can be given a fight sequence. That is what Superheroes do; They fight.
Except this Superhero. That is why this movie runs the risk of being a confirmation of the public's perception of Superman as a lame character.
well hunter, like i said before superman has limitiless strength in the movies, so Metallo would break his robotic hand if he tried to punch supes. Or supes could blast him away from space, or use super speed and etc [their are so many ways superman can beat metallo is funny]
chi-boy
05-20-2006, 04:02 PM
The new Superman movie should have a villian. Come on, the general public have had their fair share of Superman dealing with everyday problems and thugs in Lois and Clark and now Smallville. We finally get a multimillion dollar movie and he's just fighting Lex again? Cheap.
NotFadeAway
05-20-2006, 04:03 PM
well hunter, like i said before superman has limitiless strength in the movies, so Metallo would break his robotic hand if he tried to punch supes. Or supes could blast him away from space, or use super speed and etc [their are so many ways superman can beat metallo is funny]
Hence the Kryptonite heart...........know what your talking about before talking!!!!!!
NotFadeAway
05-20-2006, 04:05 PM
On that note, Id be all for Darkseid in the sequel......
This needs to be the end for Lex Luthor. I don't expect him back again, and without Lex, Metallo can't carry a film.
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 04:05 PM
True, but that's too "Nuclear Man" for my taste. It's better off to save the corny supervillains for the sequel - here's hoping Kal-El brings something back to Earth from his travels..........
How are they anymore "corny" than Superman himself ?:confused:
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 04:06 PM
well hunter, like i said before superman has limitiless strength in the movies, so Metallo would break his robotic hand if he tried to punch supes. Or supes could blast him away from space, or use super speed and etc [their are so many ways superman can beat metallo is funny]
He has a Kryptonite heart,not to mention im not saying he should be central but someone to test Superman one on one rather than catching planes and what not,or hell include both
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 04:07 PM
On that note, Id be all for Darkseid in the sequel......
This needs to be the end for Lex Luthor. I don't expect him back again, and without Lex, Metallo can't carry a film.
Darkseid will never be seen while Singer is making Superman films
If the movie follows the ending to the novel....The next Superman film will likely feature Brainiac.
NotFadeAway
05-20-2006, 04:09 PM
Darkseid will never be seen while Singer is making Superman films
It's a damn injustice.....
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 04:09 PM
If the movie follows the ending to the novel....The next Superman film will likely feature Brainiac.
Hit me with a spoiler thenhttp://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif
NotFadeAway
05-20-2006, 04:11 PM
I wonder, just a little bit, why Braniac couldn't have been in the film.............
chi-boy
05-20-2006, 04:12 PM
I wonder, just a little bit, why Braniac couldn't have been in the film.............
because singer doesn't know who brainiac is because he wasn't in donner's movies. duh.
Hit me with a spoiler thenhttp://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif
There something...forming in space, using Kryptonian technology, growing...possibly forming an intelligence.
It'd be cool if they link Brainiac with the crystal technology.....but my guess is a new planet Krypton is being created with Brainiac as the central core; An AI being formed.
NotFadeAway
05-20-2006, 04:14 PM
because singer doesn't know who brainiac is because he wasn't in donner's movies. duh.
LOL
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 04:14 PM
There something...forming in space, using Kryptonian technology, growing...possibly forming an intelligence.
It'd be cool if they link Brainiac with the crystal technology.....but my guess is a new planet Krypton is being created with Brainiac as the central core; An AI being formed.
so it would seem he won't be like TAS version but more a computer of sorts
Mr. Thing
05-20-2006, 04:14 PM
There's a rumour that Supes brings back Braniac accidentally from his trip.
because singer doesn't know who brainiac is because he wasn't in donner's movies. duh.
The 2 writers know who Brainiac and the other villians are well, they made that clear in the moviehole interview...along with their reasons for using Luthor alone in this first film. They read the comics to get a feel for how do handle these characters.
They did the same with X-men and even there; Singer had no reservations with using villians who are very comicbook-like in style....he was just adament about making the first film into Superman VS Lex....to kick off the franchaise on familiar ground.
Darkseid isnt out as a possibility but it doesnt seem likely as alot of fans want the Kirby properties handled seperately in a New Gods film and feel it wouldnt be adequtely dealt with in a Superman film.
NotFadeAway
05-20-2006, 04:18 PM
Ahh come one, they don't REALLY know who Braniac is......they just heard his name being tossed around at Comic Con!!!!
so it would seem he won't be like TAS version but more a computer of sorts
If he is the product of the crystal technology in space as the book suggests, he could be a god. Knowledge and power amassed to unimaginable levels. It will be quite interesting to see.
dark_b
05-20-2006, 04:20 PM
i want a team up in the swquel wit hlex and some supervillain. to be honest i dont want mettalo because he is not smart enough. the next villain must be mega smart. so i ohpe they will writte a good script.
the best would be brainiac. he would be smart,strong and mybe we would have some flachbacs from krypton.
chi-boy
05-20-2006, 04:24 PM
i want a team up in the swquel wit hlex and some supervillain. to be honest i dont want mettalo because he is not smart enough. the next villain must be mega smart. so i ohpe they will writte a good script.
the best would be brainiac. he would be smart,strong and mybe we would have some flachbacs from krypton.
it would be cool to make the supervillian a tragic figure that lex is manipulating. that's how metallo was in the cartoon. oh well.
chi-boy
05-20-2006, 04:25 PM
If he is the product of the crystal technology in space as the book suggests, he could be a god. Knowledge and power amassed to unimaginable levels. It will be quite interesting to see.
i just want him to have that creepy voice and background music like in the cartoon.
Brainiac seems the most obvious if they use that Novel ending. I dont think any other mainstream Superman rogue would make sense in the context of that situation.
Its difficult to tell whether theyll write Brainiac teaming up with Lex though. I dont see it as likely. Thats already been done way too many times.
tab_engle
05-20-2006, 04:26 PM
They should have Superman take on Morgan Edge come sequel time, in my humble opinion. Good day.
it would be cool to make the supervillian a tragic figure that lex is manipulating. that's how metallo was in the cartoon. oh well.
It will likely be the other way around.... it always is.
They should have Superman take on Morgan Edge come sequel time, in my humble opinion. Good day.
They probably left secondary villians; Metallo, Parasite, Edge, Intergang...etc to be used for the video games and animated releases.
They did confirm there would be an animated release (or releases) tied to SR, coming soon. Obviously tapping into the Animatrix market.
dark_b
05-20-2006, 04:30 PM
i just want him to have that creepy voice and background music like in the cartoon.you have a good point. it would be good if the fans care for the villain.
NotFadeAway
05-20-2006, 04:30 PM
They should have Superman take on Morgan Edge come sequel time, in my humble opinion. Good day.
" Shakes head in disbelief "
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 04:40 PM
If he is the product of the crystal technology in space as the book suggests, he could be a god. Knowledge and power amassed to unimaginable levels. It will be quite interesting to see.
It does sound interesting,it could also lead into and interesting three way power struggle with Lex
Ya. I just hope it goes a different/original route from JLU and the comics. I like the fact that this possibly gives Brainiac a cool new origin too and makes Lex somewhat at fault for it's creation.
we don't need a "Hal 2000" rip in the next movie. We need Luthors return, and maybe bring back a manstream villain like Zod again.
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 05:31 PM
we don't need a "Hal 2000" rip in the next movie. We need Luthors return, and maybe bring back a manstream villain like Zod again.
That would just be more retreading of old ground,i'd like to see Singer try something fresh
Fine, have supes take on serous world issues. Something that he is suppose to do. Bryan singer likes to do movies that have some kind of message.Like the x men movies in the past always focused on the story before the action. I assume the sequels will follow the same route.
Spare-Flair
05-20-2006, 05:39 PM
I was watching Batman Begins again, and I realized how well it works when the villians are real and human. Even Ras, a very magical/mystical based character in the comics, was portrayed in a very real, human manner.
Superman may be an alien, but in this film...hes very human (possibly more real than any previous Superman portrayal)....meaning a non-geek audience of all ages would be able to enjoy the film without being alienated (no pun intended).
I think their approach was right...build up an audience first with a very human movie (bringing Supes back to the bigscreen for the first time in 30 years)....and then break into more sci-fi based comicbook stuff for the future films (supervillians like Brainiac, Metallo etc....)
If we can objectify this decision outside the realm of being hardcore comicbook fans, it does actually seem like a very reasonable and logical apporach for the mainstream audience, who likely arent major sci-fi fans. Everyone (comicbook fans or not) know that Superman's arch nemesis has always been Lex Luthor, and that familiarity will be a good draw for them to see this flick. The great thing is both writers confirmed (via Moviehole.com) that supervillians will appear in the sequels and alot of elements relating to the sequels will be set up in Superman Returns.
So I'm finally convinced this was a wise decision, what do you guys think?
I just hope we don't get Zod again...technically in Superman 2, Zod and the others were led away by police and incarcerated. It was even shown on the ABC television broadcast of Superman 2.
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 05:39 PM
I'd prefer Superman to confront Lex and Brainiac than negotiate world peace,the battles would replace this movies earthquakes and plane rescues in the action department
Spare-Flair
05-20-2006, 05:45 PM
Fine, have supes take on serous world issues. Something that he is suppose to do. Bryan singer likes to do movies that have some kind of message.Like the x men movies in the past always focused on the story before the action. I assume the sequels will follow the same route.
Serious world issues isn't going to work man...Superheroes tackling real world social and political issues is just a pure minefield that nobody is going to get out alive from. Look at all those Superhero comics with 9/11 covers back then. It made Superheroes look irrelevant for all their years and powers, helpless to have changed anything except to stand in front of waving flags and smoke. Would you have Superman stopping world war? Tackling poverty? Famine? Look at what happened when Superman tried to fulfill the social agenda of Christopher Reeve in stopping nuclear proliferation - we got Superman IV.
The problem is Superman can't be too greedy, he can't try to fix everything at once. The only way he could do it well and artistically would be an adaptation of Alex Ross' 60th Anniversary issue "Peace on Earth" which shows Superman finally having enough of poverty and hunger and trying to feed the world and generally running into so many problems, he loses heart and realizes he cannot do everything at once, but must encourage human beings to help themselves and change through a long and painful process.
But that book was very artistic and sentimental, it would not work on the big screen. X-Men works in tackling the anti-mutant agenda as sort of an allegory to racism. I don't see the same happening in Superman.
i rather him tackle world issues, then some super-smart space alien scientist in black underwear aka Brainaic with no motive for hateing superman.
Spare-Flair
05-20-2006, 05:54 PM
i rather him tackle world issues, then some super-smart space alien scientist in black underwear aka Brainaic with no motive for hateing superman.
We are talking about a main character who is a super-strong alien orphan who wears red underwear and a cape. You don't want him fighting other people in underwear? Come on, this is not a realistic "real world issues" character to begin with.
*erase stupid rambling about Eradiator* :)
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 05:55 PM
i rather him tackle world issues, then some super-smart space alien scientist in black underwear aka Brainaic with no motive for hateing superman.
You think Brainiacs black underwear is not as good as Supes red set ?:o
And if Singer and his crew are such geniuses they can easily right a good story and motivation for Brainiac
What exactly do you want him to tackle in these "world issues" floods ? volcano eruptions ? terrorist hijackings and bomb threats ?
Brainiac a kryptonian computer....what the hell are you talking about Flair? Braniac from the comics has nothing to do with Krypton. you ever wonder why the first 2 superman movies were beter then the last 2?
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 05:59 PM
Brainiac a kryptonian computer....what the hell are you talking about Flair? Braniac from the comics has nothing to do with Krypton. you ever wonder why the first 2 superman movies were beter then the last 2?
Because they had better directors
Spare-Flair
05-20-2006, 06:00 PM
Brainiac a kryptonian computer....what the hell are you talking about Flair? Braniac from the comics has nothing to do with Krypton. you ever wonder why the first 2 superman movies were beter then the last 2?
Sorry, I had a major brain fart and for some reason started rambling about the Eradicator instead of Brainiac.
Spare-Flair
05-20-2006, 06:02 PM
Because they had better directors
Because they had proper budgets? Superman III should have been a great movie but some bigwig producer decideded to make it more comic and family friendly as some sort of pastiche buddy comedy with Richard Pryor.
Superman IV could have been something if Cannon films didn't steal half the budget for their own projects, dooming Superman to B-grade movie shortcuts and effects.
now i dun mind Braniac appearing, but he could be Luthors side-kick or something. I want to see what Luthor does for an encore in the sequels. I mean the guys the second greatest arch villain in comic-book history. Im sure Lex will always have a new plan.
Hunter Rider
05-20-2006, 06:07 PM
now i dun mind Braniac appearing, but he could be Luthors side-kick or something. I want to see what Luthor does for an encore in the sequels. I mean the guys the second greatest arch villain in comic-book history. Im sure Lex will always have a new plan.
They could use the manipulation theme,with both trying to outwit the other,if they used Brainiacs TAS origin he would have records of Krypton,something Lex would value highly
Spare-Flair
05-20-2006, 06:07 PM
now i dun mind Braniac appearing, but he could be Luthors side-kick or something. I want to see what Luthor does for an encore in the sequels. I mean the guys the second greatest arch villain in comic-book history. Im sure Lex will always have a new plan.
What's with Luthor and sidekicks though? Brainiac's intelligence rivals Luthor. They should be partners using each other and constantly stabbing each other in the back.
BrollySupersj
05-20-2006, 06:10 PM
I say Mettalo for next villain, and...if they do. To make the fight more epic and intense...go with the Video Game design for him.
dark_b
05-20-2006, 06:26 PM
I say Mettalo for next villain, and...if they do. To make the fight more epic and intense...go with the Video Game design for him.you mena the big mettalo? i think i speak for every man on the world that isnt a hard core fan when i say: are you insane?
this movie would bomb before the premiere.
BrollySupersj
05-20-2006, 07:23 PM
you mena the big mettalo? i think i speak for every man on the world that isnt a hard core fan when i say: are you insane?
this movie would bomb before the premiere.
Why? whats wrong with another BIG problem for superman?
Spare-Flair
05-20-2006, 08:14 PM
Why? whats wrong with another BIG problem for superman?
Easy to make the CG really unbelievable (I mean in the implausible bad sense). I mean if they can't even make Superman landing look realistic, a giant monster would just be Superman vs. Godzilla.
NotFadeAway
05-21-2006, 01:01 AM
Again....this upcoming film needs to be the end of Lex Luthor!!!!!!!!!!!!
No way. Spacey needs to be in every Superman film till the day he dies. Hes genious.
I just watched Se7en again, hoooly.
He can carry this movie as the villian all on his own. Its so freakin apparent now.
NotFadeAway
05-21-2006, 01:04 AM
Well, Im treating this film as a sequel, and sense Im going along those lines, this is Lex's 3rd movie. The character needs dealt with now......
Braniac is big enough that he doesnt need to share a movie with Lex. Neither does Darkseid. The point being that there are OTHER villians, the storyline shouldn't require Lex for a 4th time!!!!
The Guard
05-21-2006, 01:05 AM
I wonder, just a little bit, why Braniac couldn't have been in the film.............
Both Braniac and the comic book Zod were part of their early franchise brainstorming.
NotFadeAway
05-21-2006, 01:07 AM
Both Braniac and the comic book Zod were part of their early franchise brainstorming.
Well I hope that does lead to Braniac in the next film!!!
Spacey doesnt need to share a movie with some random supervillians. Superman Returns is his time to shine, his time to own the screen....
This is why Lex as the sole villian for SR was a great idea.
Im sure Brainiac will get his chance to pose a great threat in the sequel, but I'd still want Spacey to make some cameos. Hes just too good and can play so many different characters....possibly even a sadistic version of Lexiac (like his role in Se7en).
NotFadeAway
05-21-2006, 01:13 AM
I still would have liked to see Metallo as Luthor's puppet!!!!!!
Then fans would complain that Corben was a tool like Nuclear Man and took a backseat to Lex.
Lets see how major Lex's role is in this film first.
The Guard
05-21-2006, 02:49 AM
Braniac is big enough that he doesnt need to share a movie with Lex.
Perhaps, but the presence of Lex Luthor makes his story far more interesting. They have intersected for years in the comcis, and it makes perfect sense to team them up in SUPERMAN FOREVER.
Or, dare I say, force Superman to ally with Lex Luthor against Braniac. Now there's an interesting plotline after the events of SUPERMAN RETURNS.
Saint
05-21-2006, 02:55 AM
I agree with Guard. Any Superman film without Lex Luthor would be a huge mistake. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Superman Returns should have also included an additional villain.
Hunter Rider
05-21-2006, 07:08 AM
I agree with Guard. Any Superman film without Lex Luthor would be a huge mistake. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Superman Returns should have also included an additional villain.
Agreed:up:
WormyT
05-21-2006, 04:45 PM
I agree with Guard. Any Superman film without Lex Luthor would be a huge mistake. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that Superman Returns should have also included an additional villain.
True.
They could easily have added Metallo. They wouldn't have even needed an origin. Just make it so Luthor was constructing his bionics and Kryptonite Heart during Supermans 5 year absence. Once Superman Returns, Luthors got an Ace up his sleeve if Superman starts interfering with his masterplan. Instead we get a kryptonite Dagger.
They spent so much money on this movie, it's hard to believe theres no supervillain in the budget. I mean, Doc Ocks effects alone in SPidey2 must have cost a fortune. I can't imagine how much the second one will cost with the edition of a new supervillain.
spideymusprime
05-21-2006, 05:59 PM
True.
They could easily have added Metallo. They wouldn't have even needed an origin. Just make it so Luthor was constructing his bionics and Kryptonite Heart during Supermans 5 year absence. Once Superman Returns, Luthors got an Ace up his sleeve if Superman starts interfering with his masterplan. Instead we get a kryptonite Dagger.
They spent so much money on this movie, it's hard to believe theres no supervillain in the budget. I mean, Doc Ocks effects alone in SPidey2 must have cost a fortune. I can't imagine how much the second one will cost with the edition of a new supervillain.
I don't think costs will be a problem for the next movie. SR is going to smash a lot of box-office records. It will open to a 100 mil + OW and finish off with a total of 390 million. You can add another 400-450 for overseas gross. DVD sales and rental will be through the roof. What we're going to have here is a mega blockbuster and the #1 film of the year. Up, up and away! :supes:
ChrisBaleBatman
05-21-2006, 07:08 PM
I dunno.....a Superman movie without Lex........I dunno. If he were in a cameo role, I guess it could work.....sort behind the scenes pullling strings or something. But...I dunno. If written well, it could work perfectly.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.