The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Superman > Man of Steel

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-14-2011, 08:13 PM   #26
The Overlord
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,640
Default Re: What's so bad about villains created for the movie?

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite View Post
My point is that everyone's pointing out examples from bad movies, movies which were bad for reasons other than the villains, and more for their overall tone and plotholes you could fly a Star Destroyer through.

Nuclear Man, for example, isn't a completely flawed concept. Ignoring the cheesy appearance and bad acting for once, think of him as a version of Bizarro that's actually dangerous, one who's not as dumb as a stump and with extra abilities such as energy blasts and telekinesis.
Except you haven't given a good reason why new villains should be used from ones from the comics, you just say it may be good. So what, anything may be good, but I want something that is respectful to the source material and that includes more villains from the comics, not the writers of film thinking they know better

But that's just it, Nuclear Man is a rip off of Bizarro, so there no reason to care about him, he is just a rip off a more popular and beloved character. He brings nothing new to the table, they can just make Bizarro more dangerous in the film if they felt like it, it has happened in the past, like in :Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow." Seriously if they these new character are just rip offs of existing villains, what's the point of having them? Also Nuclear Man acted like an idiot during that movie, so he wasn't more dangerous then Bizzaro, he was a joke and ham fisted political straw man.

Since the movie is based on the comic book and I want to see mainly the characters who have been proven to last, from the comic, not some film maker thinking they can do better then the source material. If they going to use a new villain, use him as a side character, like Otis or Miss Testmarker, those characters are not hated because they were not the main villain. You give Lex a new non powered henchman, sure, but the Big Bad from the films should be from the comics. Why, because these characters have with stood the test of the time, unlike some character made up by some studio exec.

Seriously is there any good reason a new villain should be used over the dozens of Superman villains from the comics that have not been in a film yet? Why should a new villain appear before Metallo, Parasite, Brainiac, Darkseid, etc. Could think of any good reason to use new villains over established ones. Why would that be better?

Frankly it just common sense that people who grew up reading Superman comics, would want villains from the comics they grew up with, rather then some villain they never heard of.

Originally Posted by Lead Cenobite View Post
I've not seen every comic book movie ever made, and the only examples I can think of are generally bad movies, which aren't bad just because they made up the villain. And still, there is Batman Begins and it's interpretation of Ra's, in which he was heavily changed to fit the plot and Nolan's realistic style. Why is it better that they used Ra's, because it increases the tally of villains in the movies that originated in the comics? Would it have been so awful if the terrorist vigilante character was given a new name?
Ra's was a bit of revamp of an existing character, not a new one, there is a huge difference between that. I kinda of like it when a movie revamps a villain a bit, something sometimes the writer can make a kinda of lame villain more interesting, like what they did with Whiplash in the Iron man movie. But the fact is they used Whiplash, which shows more respect to the fans then just making up some character. They combined Whiplash with crimson Dynamo, but in a way they payed some respect to both characters, taking the best aspects from the characters and combining them into a menacing interesting villain. If a villain is lame in the comics, by all means, change him a bit, that is better than making someone up.

Last edited by The Overlord; 04-14-2011 at 08:28 PM.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-15-2011, 06:13 PM   #27
storyteller's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,162
Default Re: What's so bad about villains created for the movie?

I see no reason to make up a new bad guy unless there really is no rogue that can fit without being that character in name only. In the case of Superman, he's got a very large gallery to choose from. But lets be honest, sometimes new bad guys need to be created. From Batman we have Hush. He's a pretty new character. If they were making a Hush Like story prior to his placement in the comics, would we really have issue?

But in most cases unless the gallery is really small, reinvent established comic book rogues.

I mean you can't have a computer bad guy and ignore brainiac.
You can't have a doppelganger and ignore Bizzaro.
You can't ignore a godlike character and ignore Darkseid or even the gods from other comics like Wonder Woman and Shazam.


Its time to be a man..................and run away.
storyteller is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:14 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. is a property of Mandatory Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2018 All Rights Reserved.