Superman Returns Bottom line: Would a Supervillain have generated more interest?

[Weadazoid]

The question is simple.... would a Super Villain..a real Supervillain have made a difference. They didn't have to start with Brainiack or Doomsday or Darksied they could have gone with palatable human to monster villain in the form of Parasite.

He is not an alien... his origin is not so hard to tweak so it could come off well on film and visuals he would have produced would have been stunning..could have been a great a mix of reality and CGI much as they did with Davy Jones in Pirates

Imagine if you will a trailer that even hinted or gave us a glimpse of such a villain... Would it have been better to see Superman being drained of his power rather then being stabbed with Kryptonite dagger?

Very few people even think of Parasite... I geuss becasue he is a more obscure villain and the general pulic may not have known enough about him to get excited........ that could be comsidered as a reason to veto this idea.

But I think the public really wanted to see Superman duke it out with someone... and not in the form a weakened fight where Humans get the better of him. See Superman make an enemy recoil from his Heat vision.

 

[The Kid]

hmmm

fact probably is that when my little friend Jason sayd "hi" to superdaddy, a lot of people suddenly lost interest in this story. A villain to supes to fight might have helped some, but overall it's the daddy story that's not too interesting for folks, I'm going to guess. Lex is always a fine villain for supes but he was written poorly here. That's all I think was wrong with him.

 

[Super Kal]

eh, it's possible...

 

[Excel]

yes ti would of but not a whole not more.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

I would sort of go with the idea that some Supervillain would have been perhaps better.

 

[Steelsheen]

Lex was a big enough villain for Superman, and he has the added advantage that everybody knows who he is. a supervillain smackdown wouldnt have generated any more interest than an additional train derailment sequence. SR's faults doesnt lie in the action sequences but rather the story and characterization. Singer underestimated the GP's knowledge of the character. as i've said before, you dont really need to be a comic book reader to know the charcter traits of Superman.

 

[Weadazoid]

It is of course all retrospective I know that much and from this point it is all just geuss work..... but the diea of Superman really going mono a mano with a Supervillain may have broughtbetter word of mouth and a better opening.

Davy Jones all by himself was interesting enough to get some people to go see Pirates... most reprots from freinds are that they just loved watching him...watching his ever changing cithulu inspired face.

Would it not have also been interesting to Parastie make some kind of trasformation as the movie went along perhaps to the rows of leach like teath making him far more menacing

 

[Hack and Slash]

Yes it would but i think they want to make SR like STM, only Lex Luthor as a villian . Lex Luthor was a good villian in my view in SR as he was the one villian that knows Superman weakness and uses it aganist him and is a tough opponent that Superman will find hard to beat. i think they wanted to save the super villians for upcoming sequels and superman movies.

 

[Showtime]

Would have helped box office in my opinion, seeing Superman fight in the tv-spots and trailers would have made for some larger interest.

 

[Mauser9910]

Playing the death of Superman card without Doomsday was stupid to say the least : Singer, you're a very bad man !

 

[Superfreak]

I say Yes, a supervillain with a battle, probably would have been more satisfying to just about everyone.


BUT,,,


Would a Supervillain in the first movie have been good for the franchise? NO. Why? Because once they've put superman up against a villain of equal ability, where can the franchise go? A super battle is a super battle. Once it's done, doing another begins to become redundant (not totally so, but eventually). A franchise must evolve. It must begin small and grow larger. The maxtrix tri, and the Xmen tri show this very well. Both series' had small scale (relatively to their sequels) stories, and battles etc. But their sequels got bigger and badder (this is quantitative, not qualitative). And so shall the SR franchise. In order to make the franchise successful, think of Superman villains as a ladder. The first step of that ladder is Luthor and disasters. The second step of that ladder is probably a supervillain. The next is probably Superman vs. Himself. Then Superman vs. the world. And the next after that is the end all say all of Superman battles and films. In order to get to the fifth step, 4 steps must first be completed in order lay the groundwork that will make that 5th step worth while.

So, would a supervillain have made more money (because that's what you are really asking) ? Probably.

But in the long run, this was the right direction to go. In order for sequels to be bigger and badder, the initial film must not deliver all goods in one blow, it must give us a taste, leaving us asking (and in other peoples cases, begging) for more. (And I think they've achieved that, just looking at all the people *****ing and moaning about this movie, and demanding that singer be replaced so that the next movie can be 'good')

And so here's a thought, does anyone think this whole situation about the movie being so/so, and people calling for singer's head, to be very similar to Donner's situation after STM? He was fired after his initial movie, and singer is now being complained about. Yet Donner is finally releasing his version of SII, so I think Singer should get his chance. He didn't deliver the penultimate superman on his first try (rightly so IMO), but he has definately created a foundation on which a great franchise can be built.

In otherwords, Singer can only go up from here, so why worry?

 

[Jakomus]

Options in the poll are too limited. My response would be that a supervillain is useless unless it has a plot that calls for it. Singer didn't feel he needed a supervillain, therefore he shouldn't have to use one.

 

[DarKush]

I felt SR was lacking in action and a real foe to match up physically to Superman. However, my key issues with SR are the plot and characterization.

A different take on Luthor, a la STAS, Smallville, or Lex Luthor:MOS would've made him more than enough villian to handle.

I had really hoped his plan would be to use New Krypton to accuse Superman of trying to recreate Krypton on Earth. It would force Superman to have to justify himself, prove his good intentions.

Which is something I would expect a lot of real people would require of him constantly anyway, instead of just being awestruck and believing in him just because.

Bring in Cadmus and a Hulk-Buster type team to arrest Superman, and you could still get a super-battle without a supervillian. Or keeping with LL:MOS, a showdown between Supes and Luthor's Hope would be cool to see onscreen too.

Also, when thinking about the Spider-Man films, he's had two fights against supervillians and they weren't repetitive at all. But that comes from story and what each battle meant to Peter Parker's development as a hero and person.

 

[Weadazoid]

I say Yes, a supervillain with a battle, probably would have been more satisfying to just about everyone.


BUT,,,


Would a Supervillain in the first movie have been good for the franchise? NO. Why? Because once they've put superman up against a villain of equal ability, where can the franchise go? A super battle is a super battle. Once it's done, doing another begins to become redundant (not totally so, but eventually). A franchise must evolve. It must begin small and grow larger. The maxtrix tri, and the Xmen tri show this very well. Both series' had small scale (relatively to their sequels) stories, and battles etc. But their sequels got bigger and badder (this is quantitative, not qualitative). And so shall the SR franchise. In order to make the franchise successful, think of Superman villains as a ladder. The first step of that ladder is Luthor and disasters. The second step of that ladder is probably a supervillain. The next is probably Superman vs. Himself. Then Superman vs. the world. And the next after that is the end all say all of Superman battles and films. In order to get to the fifth step, 4 steps must first be completed in order lay the groundwork that will make that 5th step worth while.

So, would a supervillain have made more money (because that's what you are really asking) ? Probably.

But in the long run, this was the right direction to go. In order for sequels to be bigger and badder, the initial film must not deliver all goods in one blow, it must give us a taste, leaving us asking (and in other peoples cases, begging) for more. (And I think they've achieved that, just looking at all the people *****ing and moaning about this movie, and demanding that singer be replaced so that the next movie can be 'good')

And so here's a thought, does anyone think this whole situation about the movie being so/so, and people calling for singer's head, to be very similar to Donner's situation after STM? He was fired after his initial movie, and singer is now being complained about. Yet Donner is finally releasing his version of SII, so I think Singer should get his chance. He didn't deliver the penultimate superman on his first try (rightly so IMO), but he has definately created a foundation on which a great franchise can be built.

In otherwords, Singer can only go up from here, so why worry?

I Agree to some extent on that notion...but thats why I went for Parasite....by no menas has he ever been equal to Superman in terms of streanth or abilities...he has no heat vision he has no special long range attacks like so many other Superman Villains and he can't fly.

He is in some senses the most human Superman Villain around..... and even after absorbing the sstreagnth of say 20 men... he still would be getting his ass kicked by Superman just to get close.... but thats it he has to get close and then he becomes more on Supermans level... and even then it wear off/is not permanent.

 

[Steelsheen]

I say Yes, a supervillain with a battle, probably would have been more satisfying to just about everyone.


BUT,,,


Would a Supervillain in the first movie have been good for the franchise? NO. Why? Because once they've put superman up against a villain of equal ability, where can the franchise go? A super battle is a super battle. Once it's done, doing another begins to become redundant (not totally so, but eventually). A franchise must evolve. It must begin small and grow larger. The maxtrix tri, and the Xmen tri show this very well. Both series' had small scale (relatively to their sequels) stories, and battles etc. But their sequels got bigger and badder (this is quantitative, not qualitative). And so shall the SR franchise. In order to make the franchise successful, think of Superman villains as a ladder. The first step of that ladder is Luthor and disasters. The second step of that ladder is probably a supervillain. The next is probably Superman vs. Himself. Then Superman vs. the world. And the next after that is the end all say all of Superman battles and films. In order to get to the fifth step, 4 steps must first be completed in order lay the groundwork that will make that 5th step worth while.

So, would a supervillain have made more money (because that's what you are really asking) ? Probably.

But in the long run, this was the right direction to go. In order for sequels to be bigger and badder, the initial film must not deliver all goods in one blow, it must give us a taste, leaving us asking (and in other peoples cases, begging) for more. (And I think they've achieved that, just looking at all the people *****ing and moaning about this movie, and demanding that singer be replaced so that the next movie can be 'good')

And so here's a thought, does anyone think this whole situation about the movie being so/so, and people calling for singer's head, to be very similar to Donner's situation after STM? He was fired after his initial movie, and singer is now being complained about. Yet Donner is finally releasing his version of SII, so I think Singer should get his chance. He didn't deliver the penultimate superman on his first try (rightly so IMO), but he has definately created a foundation on which a great franchise can be built.

In otherwords, Singer can only go up from here, so why worry?

good post dude, but for me i would've started with Superman vs The World instead of Superman vs Richard+Lois, it would've been more compelling and would've achieved the same purpose without the character assasination.

also the ending of SR (Superman and Son) was one of the best endings of any film in recent memory, but again it seems misplaced. it would've been perfect if it was the ending to the last film of the trilogy.

 

[Superfreak]

I Agree to some extent on that notion...but thats why I went for Parasite....by no menas has he ever been equal to Superman in terms of streanth or abilities...he has no heat vision he has no special long range attacks like so many other Superman Villains and he can't fly.

He is in some senses the most human Superman Villain around..... and even after absorbing the sstreagnth of say 20 men... he still would be getting his ass kicked by Superman just to get close.... but thats it he has to get close and then he becomes more on Supermans level... and even then it wear off/is not permanent.

See, if I were to pick any villain to follow up on a sequel, it would also be parasite, as luthor's thug, or as a distraction that Luthor uses to tie up the 'who's boy is that?' plot line (luthor knows people). Anyhow, Yes, parasite is the perfect new villain for a sequel.

And yeah, they could give parasite all those superpowers, all he has to do leach off of superman at some point during the movie. Then we get our Superbattle, and the parasites ability make's the concept more plausible than just dropping a superpowered villain in there out of no where.

Good choice.

I still think Singer is wise in not delivering a masterpiece with the opening film. I think it's a wise move from a business stand point, and from a story telling stand point.

 

[Superfreak]

good post dude, but for me i would've started with Superman vs The World instead of Superman vs Richard+Lois, it would've been more compelling and would've achieved the same purpose without the character assasination.

also the ending of SR (Superman and Son) was one of the best endings of any film in recent memory, but again it seems misplaced. it would've been perfect if it was the ending to the last film of the trilogy.

Agreed, I think it would have been better if they kept the Jason question up in the air until the sequel. I feel they should have left it up to the viewer to make their own determinations (to bad the blatantly answered the question with that piano). I think the film, and the franchise would profit from SR ending with a 'is he? or isn't he?' question (but then we would have lost the Superson speech which was really great, although as you said, misplaced).

as for the ladder of Superman, I was just throwing out examples, rather than a solid plan of which direction the franchise should go in. As for the Richard and Lois being a step on the ladder, Richard and Lois are nothing more than a subplot in my mind. One could take that love triangle in any direction, and it still wouldn't really change the essence of the character, or the franchise.

 

[Weadazoid]

Superman vs the World...Superman vs Himself?

that much I can't agree with... (maybe as a subtext but not the plot) look this is the guy...the Spiderman of DC.. or more so that Spiderman was modeled after Superman

So far we got Green Goblin and Doc Oc and some really fantastic batles

and for part 3 they are breaking the mold

what.. why is a spiderman fight more interesting then a Superman fight.. why I just don't get that.

A fight is a fight the villains are different and have differet power/abilities. I think it could be done and done right and done with enough pizzazz to keep the general audience interested.

and if rummors are true and we get Zod then I really pity this franchise. There are such great villains to choose from


Parasite an energy vampire

Brainiack tech heavy intersting weapons

Darsiede the one eyed evil antichrist to Supermans christ... similar powers in some sense considers himself a god.

Doomsday just a monster... well mre then a monster but you know what I am saying.

Thease battles do not5 have to all be carbon copies of one another

 

[charl_huntress]

IMO, a supervillian would have helped because it would have upped the "wow" factor, and that helps with kids and pretty much everyone else since we all like to be wowed. A supervillian would have redirected the story away from the twisted and depressing romance which ended up overriding everything else in the movie, and it really shouldn't have done that in a Superman movie.

Plus, with the type of FX available today...a supervillian fight would have been cool to see.

 

[ROBOCOP CPU001]

I guess. we will find out if the sequel is green lighted.

 

[retconned]

I would have used Braniac!

 

[Superfreak]

Superman vs the World...Superman vs Himself?

that much I can't agree with... (maybe as a subtext but not the plot) look this is the guy...the Spiderman of DC.. or more so that Spiderman was modeled after Superman

So far we got Green Goblin and Doc Oc and some really fantastic batles

and for part 3 they are breaking the mold

what.. why is a spiderman fight more interesting then a Superman fight.. why I just don't get that.

A fight is a fight the villains are different and have differet power/abilities. I think it could be done and done right and done with enough pizzazz to keep the general audience interested.

and if rummors are true and we get Zod then I really pity this franchise. There are such great villains to choose from


Parasite an energy vampire

Brainiack tech heavy intersting weapons

Darsiede the one eyed evil antichrist to Supermans christ... similar powers in some sense considers himself a god.

Doomsday just a monster... well mre then a monster but you know what I am saying.

Thease battles do not5 have to all be carbon copies of one another

no kidding, but making the fanbase and audience wait for a superbattle will increase demand, resulting in higher financial takes as the franchise develops. Why does everything have to revolve around a violent battle in fanboys heads?

Yes, the fights don't have to be carbon copies of each other, I never said that they were or would be. However, when operating on the scale that Superman does, having a truely superbattle, is something that must have a serious build up. This can't be done in a single movie, especially with all the re-establishment they have to do with the character first in SR. Spiderman operates on 1% of the scale that Superman does, and it is therefore easier to throw him into fights. And besides, every hero starts there franchise fighting against their arch villain. To do otherwise is stupid. Either way, scale is the problem. Spiderman is a bad example anyways, because there isn't even a climactic battle in SpII, and none of the fights in Spiderman I or II could even be considered a super battle, when compared to what a potential supermanbattle should be.


As for the villains you mentioned: Parasite, good villain for a sequel, great villain for a sequel. Brainiac (the TAS version, the combination of the eradicator and brainiac) requires a foundation for it's introduction, which is present now after SR. Darksied is a character that definately requires a foundation, and is definately a final act villain (to use him in an opening film is a ludacris idea, maybe in a 3rd movie, but the first? dumbest suggestion ever). Same with doomsday, to have a battle of that magnitude, would just kill the franchise before it even began. Both Doomsday and Darksied are finishers. One of those two is the villain that the franchise should end on.

 

[Lord Blackbolt]

Nahh...the movie didn't need a Supervillian. BUT....they missed out on a insanely awesome opportunity in the movie. They could have set up one of Lex's Henchmen as getting taken over by the Eradicator. Since it was the thing in the FOS in comics. OR....Lex kept talkin about Kryptonian weapons...yet he was just waiting around on NK for nothing. How awesome would it have been if all his Henchmen had Crystal weapons or armor....OR...in the big climax...As Supes is lifting New Krypton...Lex attacks with a Crystal battleship like in the recent Superman comics.

Just soooooo many things. It was a good concept...but just totally wasted

 

[Backdrifter]

$255,427,000 Worldwide...anything would have helped....anything.

 

[Matt]

yes...there is no way around that