The Official MOS Misc. Villians Thread

[Spike_x1]

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

Hey Spike!



Q: How is Mongul different from any other alien?

A: Hes not. Therefore he is not visually interesting. He also has no visually interesting powers. So hes 0/2.

If you contrast Mongul with either the 'Alien' (from the Alien movies), the Predator or even the 'Thing' (from the movie 'The Thing') they all have interesting and original visual quirks and/or abilities.

Mongul has none of that. Theres nothing iconic about him. Unlike say, Doomsday who does have a cool. original look.

Likewise anyone who is simply an alternate Superman is not really visually arresting. Ultraman = Superman with a sneer, Bizarro = Pale Superman, Zod = Superman in black clothes*.

*Unless its armoured Zod.

I still fail to see what's not visually intriguing about an ENORMOUS, yellow, muscled barbarian, with glowing red eyes, a wicked energy cannon mounted on his chest, can teleport at will, and has a planet-sized galactic weapon under his control.

How aren't those "interesting and original visual quirks and/or abilities"? .

[That-Guy]

Originally Posted by Superfreak

lets not forget the eradicator. A glowing energy being, hell bent on turning earth into a new version of krypton, and the concept would complement both SR and Smallville

LOL, how the hell did I, of all people, forget about the Eradicator. Yeah, no matter which design they base the movie version off of (my personal favorite is the one in my avatar, but can understand if they didn't use that), the Eradicator is awesome and would make either a great villain or anti-hero in a Superman movie.

[Upper_Krust]

Hi spike!

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

I still fail to see what's not visually intriguing about an ENORMOUS, yellow, muscled barbarian, with glowing red eyes,

I'm not saying Mongul is rubbish, I'm just saying there is nothing really iconic about him.

Originally Posted by Spike

a wicked energy cannon mounted on his chest,

...Iron Man

Originally Posted by Spike

can teleport at will,

...Star Trek

Originally Posted by Spike

and has a planet-sized galactic weapon under his control.

...Death Star

Originally Posted by Spike

How aren't those "interesting and original visual quirks and/or abilities"? .

Probably because we have seen them all elsewhere and done better.

[Spike_x1]

But we have never seen all of those elements combined before, which is what Mongul would bring.

With that line of thinking, I really don't see how you can enjoy any possible supervillain.

• We've seen alien artificial intelligences trying to take over the universe (the Borg), so that eliminates Brainiac as a possibility.
  
  
• We've seen both Lex and Zod too many times, so they're obviously obsolete.
  
  
• We had a crazy plant person with Poison Ivy in Batman & Robin, so no Terra-man.
  
  
• I think I speak for everyone when I say that Jigsaw gave us enough prison-like deathtraps in the Saw films, so we can forget about the Master Jailer.
  
  
• We've seen Multiple Man in X-Men 3, so that removes Riot from the running.
  
  
• We've seen the Joker using toys and gags as weapons, so we can't have either the Toyman or the Prankster.
  
  
• As you said, teleporting has already been done in Star Trek, so we can't have any incarnation of Bloodsport, and the guns were done in The Punisher and a zillion other action movies too.
  
  
• Having a metal frame was done in the Terminator movies, so we can't have Metallo or the Cyborg.
  
  
• Being a huge, mindless brute was the Hulk's schtick. Bye-bye Doomsday.
  
  
• Q had omnipotence covered in Star Trek, so Mxyzptlk and Darkseid are lame choices.
  
  
• Blasting energy from a person's own body was done in The Fantastic Four, Star Wars, and countless other movies, so we can't have Neutron, Livewire, Blackrock, the Atomic Skull (that, and we don't want to copy Ghost Rider, do we?), or Arclight.
  
  
• Telepathy and telekinesis are so yesterday, whatwith Jean Grey and all that. Guess we won't be seeing Manchester Black anytime soon, and without Black, you can kiss the rest of the Elite goodbye.
  
  
• Being turned into a giant bug was done in The Fly, so we can't have Hellgrammite.
  
  
• Having a cannon for an arm was shown in Fortress, so Barrage is a no-go.
  
  
• Screaming really loud was done in X2, so no Silver Banshee.
  
  
• Draining energy has already been done by Rogue, so the Parasite would obviously be a bad idea.

Hell, superspeed and flight were done in the Matrix, superstrength was done in the Hulk, freezing stuff was done in Batman & Robin, blasting crap with the eyes was done in X-Men. I guess that means that we can't even have Superman at all, either.

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

Probably because we have seen them all elsewhere and done better.

I'm sorry, this caught me off guard, but perhaps I missed something; how could you possibly compare them, considering that Mongul's abilities have never been put to film in live action before?

[Upper_Krust]

Hey spike!

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

But we have never seen all of those elements combined before, which is what Mongul would bring.

Well maybe visually interesting and iconic means something different to me, than it does to you...?

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

With that line of thinking, I really don't see how you can enjoy any possible supervillain.

We've seen alien artificial intelligences trying to take over the universe (the Borg), so that eliminates Brainiac as a possibility.

I disagree, I think one interesting facet of Brainiac would be (as seen in OWAW) to have him create duplicates of himself by infilitrating technology. I think that would be cool.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

We've seen both Lex and Zod too many times, so they're obviously obsolete.

Neither is obsolete, but no one is describing Lex as 'visually interesting'. Same thing for Zod, unless hes in the red armour which was kind of cool in a Vader-homage type way.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

We had a crazy plant person with Poison Ivy in Batman & Robin, so no Terra-man.

Not unless there is some overt reason for why we would include him.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

I think I speak for everyone when I say that Jigsaw gave us enough prison-like deathtraps in the Saw films, so we can forget about the Master Jailer.

What a pity - everyones been clamouring to see him on the big screen

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

We've seen Multiple Man in X-Men 3, so that removes Riot from the running.

Well we never really get a look at Madrox using his power in a physical capacity, so that might be intereting if we were to use Riot.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

We've seen the Joker using toys and gags as weapons, so we can't have either the Toyman or the Prankster.

Totally agree with you on that front. Joker IS an iconic villain. Any others of a similar mould would be seen as 'copies'.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

As you said, teleporting has already been done in Star Trek, so we can't have any incarnation of Bloodsport, and the guns were done in The Punisher and a zillion other action movies too.

Well no one is asking a 'gun' to be the main villain in the new Superman movie. Then again, don't give Singer any ideas.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Having a metal frame was done in the Terminator movies, so we can't have Metallo or the Cyborg.

Well if you have seen the Superman Returns videogame, Metallo is 60 stories tall robot shooting missiles and stuff. Now that IS visually interesting. I'd like to see how Superman takes on something that size.

With regards Cyborg, I think the fact that he is Terminator-like works to his favour.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Being a huge, mindless brute was the Hulk's schtick. Bye-bye Doomsday.

I think Doomsday has an iconic look about him, with the bones on the outside.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Q had omnipotence covered in Star Trek, so Mxyzptlk and Darkseid are lame choices.

Is omnipotence a visual effect or an iconic look now?

Oh, and Darkseid ain't omnipotent last time I saw him being abused by the DC writers, by punking him out to Supes.

As for Mxyzptlk, he looks like an idiot. Hes about as much of a chance of showing up as Bat-mite in the Dark Knight movie.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Blasting energy from a person's own body was done in The Fantastic Four, Star Wars, and countless other movies, so we can't have Neutron, Livewire, Blackrock, the Atomic Skull (that, and we don't want to copy Ghost Rider, do we?), or Arclight.

Well no one is really wanting to see those third rate villains on the big screen.

Certainly not before the more iconic villains are given a chance. There is a reason why some villains are more popular than others. Cooler-looking and cooler power set are two such reasons. Originality is another.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Telepathy and telekinesis are so yesterday, whatwith Jean Grey and all that. Guess we won't be seeing Manchester Black anytime soon, and without Black, you can kiss the rest of the Elite goodbye.

I dunno. Manchester Black is quite a cool character (for a human looking villain). Chemo is pretty cool, as is Shrapnel.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Being turned into a giant bug was done in The Fly, so we can't have Hellgrammite.

No we can't have him.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Having a cannon for an arm was shown in Fortress, so Barrage is a no-go.

Waste of time.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Screaming really loud was done in X2, so no Silver Banshee.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Draining energy has already been done by Rogue, so the Parasite would obviously be a bad idea.

I'm undecided about Parasite. Showing him taking on characteristics of those he drains would be cool in a sort of 'The Thing' way.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

Hell, superspeed and flight were done in the Matrix,

Heck they even had fights between 'super-beings' in the Matrix Revolutions, maybe thats why Singer didn't use any.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

superstrength was done in the Hulk, freezing stuff was done in Batman & Robin, blasting crap with the eyes was done in X-Men.

I guess that means that we can't even have Superman at all, either.

Well he pretty much doesn't do any of that in Superman Returns as it is.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

I'm sorry,

No need to apologise dude.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

this caught me off guard, but perhaps I missed something;

Yes, you missed the gist of the thread.

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

how could you possibly compare them, considering that Mongul's abilities have never been put to film in live action before?

Very simple.

1) Mongul is not an iconic villain.
2) Mongul has no unique (or at least unique to when he was created) abilities.
3) Hes not especially visually interesting. He doesn't really have a 'gimmick' as such.

Although, as I said in an earlier post, that doesn't make him rubbish or worthless. But likewise it doesn't make him especially noteworthy of being included on the big screen.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

Well if you have seen the Superman Returns videogame, Metallo is 60 stories tall robot shooting missiles and stuff. Now that IS visually interesting. I'd like to see how Superman takes on something that size.

But Metallo is nothing like that.

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

1) Mongul is not an iconic villain.

That's because DC's been misusing Darkseid as Superman's cosmic dictator rival, when Mongul should be filling that capacity.

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

2) Mongul has no unique (or at least unique to when he was created) abilities.

So?No powers are unique anymore.

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

3) Hes not especially visually interesting.

Actually, I think he is. I mean, he's an 18 foot tall slab of pure muscle. That VS. Superman would make a cool fight.

[Spike_x1]

1) Mongul is not an iconic villain.
2) Mongul has no unique (or at least unique to when he was created) abilities.
3) Hes not especially visually interesting. He doesn't really have a 'gimmick' as such.

How exactly is that an explanation as to how you compared Mongul's powers to those elements that you mentioned, which are from entirely different mediums? I mean, you didn't even attempt to explain how you made your comparisons. All you did was repeat the opinion that you posted earlier, which is not remotely what I asked. I'm asking how you managed to make your assessment between certain elements that were in live action and other elements that have never been seen in live action before, but have always been limited to drawings on paper. I can understand seeing similarities, but there's a large difference between seeing something in common with something else and making unwavering comparisons based on those commonalities, considering that the differences in their respective mediums doesn't even allow you to make a side-by-side assessment of which one is better.

For example, I can understand how you can see the similarities between Warworld and the Death Star, but it is completely unfair and unfounded to automatically disregard the very notion of Warworld based on those similarities. For all you know, Warworld in live action may put the Death Star to shame and be a hundred times more visually impressive. You have absolutely no way of knowing.

The same principle applies to all of the characters I've brought up in this discussion.

But no. That's obviously not the way things work . Hell, you're not even consistent; you dismiss some characters based on the fact that their abilities and gimmicks have already been showcased in other movies, but for some odd reason, you don't dismiss others who fall under the same category. You can't have it both ways.

Based on that same line of thinking which you're using for Mongul, I've already explained why not even Superman himself can appear in his own movies, and yet we know that Superman will of course be showing up in future films. Taking that into consideration, we know for a fact that that train of thought is quite obviously not the same one used by the executives at WB.

[Upper_Krust]

Hello there!

Originally Posted by The Question

But Metallo is nothing like that.

He can change like that though.

Originally Posted by The Question

That's because DC's been misusing Darkseid as Superman's cosmic dictator rival, when Mongul should be filling that capacity.

Probably because Darkseid is cooler looking, with cooler powers, hes the more iconic villain.

Originally Posted by The Question

So? No powers are unique anymore.

True to an extent, but Superman is still iconic because he was the original to have those powers and look.

Originally Posted by The Question

Actually, I think he is. I mean, he's an 18 foot tall slab of pure muscle. That VS. Superman would make a cool fight.

I don't rerember him ever looking 18 feet tall.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

He can change like that though.

I'm pretty sure he can't.

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

Probably because Darkseid is cooler looking, with cooler powers, hes the more iconic villain.

Yet Darkseid is horribly misplaced as being solely a Superman villain. And, how is he cooler looking?

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

True to an extent, but Superman is still iconic because he was the original to have those powers and look.

Not really. Superman drew inspiration from several differtent novels and myths. And in any event, no other character is origional, so using that arguement against Mongul is rather moot.

Originally Posted by Upper_Krust

I don't rerember him ever looking 18 feet tall.

I'm pretty sure he is. He's a good bit more than twice as tall as Batman, and Batman is about six feet tall.

[Spike_x1]

Mongul's size varies from artist to artist, but the general consensus is that he's a HUGE mountain of muscle, towering over the other characters that he's shown with in his stories.

As for Metallo, he's gone giant a couple times before in the comics (the most well known occurance being his upgrade in Y2K). But, assuming that he does become a giant at some point during a movie, I'd save it for the climactic fight scene at the end, and have him be of regular size up until that point.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by Spike_x1

I still fail to see what's not visually intriguing about an ENORMOUS, yellow, muscled barbarian, with glowing red eyes, a wicked energy cannon mounted on his chest, can teleport at will, and has a planet-sized galactic weapon under his control.

How aren't those "interesting and original visual quirks and/or abilities"? .

Mongul is far more feasible than Darksied, he has far less of a back story and convoluted history than Darkseid. Granted he is not as interesting as Darkseid, but he is easier to bring to the silver screen. Plus a lot of people think that darkseid is out of Superman's league, so Superman beating Moongul would create less of a negative fan reaction, than Superman beating Darkseid on screen.

However I would change a few things about his look, I think purple spandex would look silly for someone who is supposed to be a fearsome tyrant, change the colour scheme on his outfit and I think he would be good to go.

[The Question]

I wouldn't change the color scheme. Just make it look more like armor.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by The Question

I wouldn't change the color scheme. Just make it look more like armor.

I don't think purple would work on screen, I know its the colour of royality, but a lot of people don't know that and would believe it would look silly on someone who is supposed to be a fearsome tyrant. Plus the colour purple is kinda foppish, I know black and grey uniforms are a bit cliche, but they are effective in making somone look fearsome, rather than foppish.

[The Question]

What's wrong with purple? Purple looks fine. Especially a darker purple.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by The Question

What's wrong with purple? Purple looks fine. Especially a darker purple.

Like I said it looks kinda foppish. Black and grey are more threatening colours, when is the last time you saw villain wear purple in a film?

[Spike_x1]

I'd be okay with changing some of the look to his armor to adapt it to the big screen, but it would have to have at least some purple elements to it, just for tradition's sake.

Perhaps either darken or redden the purple from Ed McGuinness' rendering of Mongul II, and it might be better suited:



Or turn the blue parts of Phil Jimenez's version of Mongul's armor into black or gray, instead of blue, and it could work:

[The Question]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Like I said it looks kinda foppish. Black and grey are more threatening colours, when is the last time you saw villain wear purple in a film?

The Joker and Mr. Glass are two I can think of. Mr. Glass didn't look foppish.

[The Overlord]

[QUOTE=Spike_x1]I'd be okay with changing some of the look to his armor to adapt it to the big screen, but it would have to have at least some purple elements to it, just for tradition's sake.

Perhaps either darken or redden the purple from Ed McGuinness' rendering of Mongul II, and it might be better suited:

[QUOTE]

Mongul's costume is not iconic, so I don't see why it should be exactly the same in comics and on films. Wolverine's costume is far more recongizible and it wasn't used because pople thought it wouldn't work on screen. What works inthe comics doesn't always work on screen. Plus I think the laser canon sticking out of his chest is bit stupid as well, I like Mongul I who relied on his fists instead of gadgets, the fight between Mongul and superman in JLU was really brutal, without Mongul relying on gadgets, its more brutal and personal without them.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by The Question

The Joker and Mr. Glass are two I can think of. Mr. Glass didn't look foppish.

That's like two villains out of the thousands seen on film. Plus Joker has a theatrical personality so purple works on him, purple really doesn't reflect Mongul's personality.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

That's like two villains out of the thousands seen on film. Plus Joker has a theatrical personality so purple works on him, purple really doesn't reflect Mongul's personality.

Purple's purple, dude. There's nothing wrong with it. A dark purple on Mongul doesn't look "foppish."

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by The Question

Purple's purple, dude. There's nothing wrong with it. A dark purple on Mongul doesn't look "foppish."

I think purple only works on certain characters and I'm not sure purple will work Mongul on screen. Its not big deal mind you, perhaps purple can be pulled off well on screen and I am not going to be upset if he wears purple and it doesn't look silly, but its more risky to use purple than balck or grey, there is a greater likelyhood that a purple uniform would look silly.

[Spike_x1]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Mongul's costume is not iconic, so I don't see why it should be exactly the same in comics and on films. Wolverine's costume is far more recongizible and it wasn't used because pople thought it wouldn't work on screen. What works inthe comics doesn't always work on screen. Plus I think the laser canon sticking out of his chest is bit stupid as well, I like Mongul I who relied on his fists instead of gadgets, the fight between Mongul and superman in JLU was really brutal, without Mongul relying on gadgets, its more brutal and personal without them.

I didn't say it should be exactly the same . In fact, I even said the opposite: that I'd be fine with changing it, as long as it maintains at least some purple in the color scheme, the same way that Wolverine's movie costume retained the same "slash" marks along the shoulders as his comic book uniform, which worked perfectly well on the silver screen. It was a traditional element in Wolverine's costume design, much the same way as the color purple is a traditional element in Mongul's costume design. Even if it's just a purple trim throughout Mongul's otherwise black and gray armor, or if it simply had a purple sheen to it when seen in the right light, I'd be fine with that in a movie.

Those pictures that I posted were merely suggestions off the top of my head, plus the fact that I even described some changes that I would make to them means that I wouldn't want them appearing exactly as shown.

As for the cannon/amulet on his chest, he barely ever uses it. And since you brought up his fight with Superman in JLU, I might as well point out that the comic book fight which inspired that entire episode was much more brutal, and Mongul used his fists quite a bit, but also fired the cannon once in the issue. It's a staple in his design which has been there since his first appearance, so they might as well put it to good use.

I mean, if Superman can have such a random power as shooting fire from his eyes, of all places, then Mongul should be allowed the same courtesy to fire energy blasts from random parts of his body.

[The Question]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

I think purple only works on certain characters and I'm not sure purple will work Mongul on screen. Its not big deal mind you, perhaps purple can be pulled off well on screen and I am not going to be upset if he wears purple and it doesn't look silly, but its more risky to use purple than balck or grey, there is a greater likelyhood that a purple uniform would look silly.

Puprle wouldn't look silly. Purple would look purple. It's not a silly color.

[The Overlord]

Originally Posted by The Question

Puprle wouldn't look silly. Purple would look purple. It's not a silly color.

Then how come most film villains dont wear purple, if its such a threatening colour?

[The Question]

Originally Posted by The Overlord

Then how come most film villains dont wear purple, if its such a threatening colour?

I didn't say it was threatening. It's not really anything. It's just purple. It simply is.