All Things Superman: An Open Discussion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 33

Status
Not open for further replies.
Im not talking about Zod or not Zod..Im talking about a movie that for audience has not yet a main villain..Everyone knows, but Wb hasn't officially shoed nothing..He could easily be, like Star Trek where the villain is another one, but they have showed him, in a role..

You have to be lost to think shannon not playing Zod.I guess Antje Traue not playing faora either.Maybe she playing wonder woman.You never know.(sarcasm)

Yeah....lol...we need some news and may not get any until the next trailer which just might be a few weeks away. :csad:
 
Well Snyder has not officially confirmed Zod.
You never know,
Shannon could be playing someone posing as Zod .

Shannon and Goyer have both confirmed he's Zod so just because Snyder hasn't said it doesn't mean anything.
 
Saw this on imgur, weird that whoever made this concept marketing got the logo wrong

6ZuH0gv.png
 
^Looks as though they substituted the SR costume for MOS's. Cool concept, though.
 
I read somewhere that that was a part of the SR marketing and someone just shopped the MOS date in.

Then WB needs to bring this marketing tactic back for MOS. It's awesome.
 
Official MOS t-shirt going on sale Monday:
MOSshirt_blog.JPG


Can't wait to get one and add it with my classic and SR t-shirts!
 
Official MOS t-shirt going on sale Monday:
MOSshirt_blog.JPG


Can't wait to get one and add it with my classic and SR t-shirts!

Looks great. I'll be getting one for sure.
 
Why did they add the texture? Looks bad just on the shield.
 
My sister hates hot topic but she's in her mid twenties so she is supposed to not like a store aimed at 12 year olds.

I myself am indifferent to Hot Topic but I really dig that shirt. I don't buy comicbook movie tie in shirts though.
 
The IMDB 'press screening' review introduced an idea that would make 100% sense for a realism type film, explain the creation of an iconic Superman location, AND answer a question that's been pondered since 1938....

All it takes is one of THE biggest changes to the mythology ever. Forget SR and the kid, THIS change (which I'm convinced is happening) is going to piss off more people than Nolans TDKR...

Kal-El is not the only member of his family to escape the destruction of Krypton.

I am still convinced that both Jor-El and Lara die - just not together. I see a scenario where Jor-El sacrifices himself to save his wife and child, who fly off in a ship. They escape to Earth, where the damaged ship is at risk. There, Lara sacrifices herself to save her son, who is sent off in a emergency pod, whilst the ship crashes in the North. When Clark gets older, he finds the ship, which recognises who he is, informing him of his past.


Almost every part of this change improves the story. We get an explanation for why Jor-El didn't try to save his whole family - now he does. We get a clear reason why the ship comes to Earth - Lara piloted it there. We get an scientific explanation for the 'Fortress' instead of magic crystals.

All that's lost is a bit of the whimsy, and idea that a child is sent out at random, although the outcome is the same.

Lots of evidence to support this. In the trailers, the 'fortress' looks more like a ship, down to the flares, floors.

The shot of a woman watching the destruction (Krypton?). It could be from a cave - OR a view screen from a ship?

Finally, John Byrne was set to use a similar idea for his origin, called (surprise, surprise) Man of Steel. Lara was to come with Kal-El to Earth and the Kents, and die shortly after by Kryptonite poisoning...

The question is, would you support such a change to the Superman story?
 
Let me rephrase that.


The people who were unhappy with the idea that Bruce would quit being Batman, and that somebody else would take his place.

Ideas that worked in the context of the film, but die hard fans thought were completely against Batmans nature...
 
There's been hundreds of explanations for why Jor-El couldn't save his entire family.

We know that the Fortress of Solitude is a scout ship sent by Jor-El to search for a planet that is compatible with Krypton's in order to increase Kal-El's chances of survival.

And the IMDB review is bogus.
 
There's been hundreds of explanations for why Jor-El couldn't save his entire family.

We know that the Fortress of Solitude is a scout ship sent by Jor-El to search for a planet that is compatible with Krypton's in order to increase Kal-El's chances of survival.

These are ideas explored in depth in comics, and TV series.

But for a feature film?


The idea of a scout ship sounds plausible, but given the nature of MOS's writer and producer, I'm more convinced of a clearer explanation. That's why the idea of a crashed ship makes more sense.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I got a feeling that Krypton will be less mystical, more 'real', with Jor-El being (pardon the pun) - more Human, less omnipotent. Hence the simple hologram of him as he is, no grandiose designs.
 
How is a crashed scout ship less realistic than a crashed ship with a dead pilot?
 
Why would the scout ship be crashed? AND on the same planet that Kal-El ends up on? Unlike 2009's Star Trek, I doubt Nolan and Goyer will introduce so many coincidences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,327
Messages
22,086,534
Members
45,885
Latest member
RadioactiveMan
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"