Let the villian actually cause some true destruction this time...

[rogue trooper]

Brainiac is ofcourse an obvious choice for the next film. However, if there is to be a second villain, like in Batman Begins, I say use Mongul(he's like a more accessible version of Darkseid and definately more interesting than Doomsday).

 

[mjbull23]

What's that? Superman and Atlas you say? Gnarly dude. I'm totally there.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Brainiac is ofcourse an obvious choice for the next film. However, if there is to be a second villain, like in Batman Begins, I say use Mongul(he's like a more accessible version of Darkseid and definately more interesting than Doomsday).

Doomsday better then Mongul as a villian.

 

[TheWatcher]

metallo,parasite,brainiac,doomsday,mongul,darkseid,henshaw would all work

 

[KalMart]

Considering what The Joker did to Gotham....
A superman villain should be able to level city blocks...

SR: Earthquakes, maelstroms, falling cranes, exploding gas mains, falling globes, possible tidal waves, and an island made of kryptonite.

TDK: "Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets."

In SR, Luthor threatened to end the world, yet in TDK....it felt more like it was really happening, at least viscerally. So aside from the scope of danger/calamity, the stakes have to be really set up by the writer, and it has to be composed well by the filmmaker. Otherwise you're just watching the disaster instead of experiencing it.

 

[Octoberist]

It was because The Joker was a constant presense in the movie. He made himself known to Gotham, and had several great scenes with Batman.

Lex's plot in SR (despite the stupid con-man gimmick), felt like a side-plot and it didn't feel like it drove the story at all. There was a disconnection because the majority of Lex scenes dealt with only him and his crew. The only time he interacted with the rest of the main cast was near the end. Even then, that was not enough.

That was a problem in Superman: The MOtion Picture but at least, there were more things happening (like Superman's origins, etc). You can accept it for what it was. In SR, it was a different story...

 

[KalMart]

It was because The Joker was a constant presense in the movie. He made himself known to Gotham, and had several great scenes with Batman.

Add to that, he was written as a cruel, calculating menace that a) presented the hero with impossibly costly choices with dire consequences either way, b) decapitated his competition, c) turned the people against the people's hero, and d) turned the people against each other. Not to mention exploiting police corruption and other things here and there. Very 'Art Of War'.

Lex's plot in SR (despite the stupid con-man gimmick), felt like a side-plot and it didn't feel like it drove the story at all. There was a disconnection because the majority of Lex scenes dealt with only him and his crew. The only time he interacted with the rest of the main cast was near the end. Even then, that was not enough.

That was a problem in Superman: The MOtion Picture but at least, there were more things happening (like Superman's origins, etc). You can accept it for what it was. In SR, it was a different story...

Don't you get the feeling that if SR's Lex and his henchmen went up against TDK's Joker and his....it wouldn't even be a contest? Heck....even SR's Superman against TDK's Joker.....

 

[Octoberist]

No contest, Joker and his goons can hold his own against SR's Superman.

 

[Octoberist]

What's that? Superman and Atlas you say? Gnarly dude. I'm totally there.

I think he could work..but I think he was brought back to the comics recently right? He only had one appearance 30 years ago, before he was brought back by Geoff Johns and James Robinson last year. Kinda obscure, I suppose.

 

[Wally West]

SR: Earthquakes, maelstroms, falling cranes, exploding gas mains, falling globes, possible tidal waves, and an island made of kryptonite.

TDK: "Look what I did to this city with a few drums of gas and a couple of bullets."

In SR, Luthor threatened to end the world, yet in TDK....it felt more like it was really happening, at least viscerally. So aside from the scope of danger/calamity, the stakes have to be really set up by the writer, and it has to be composed well by the filmmaker. Otherwise you're just watching the disaster instead of experiencing it.

You couldn't be more right. The set up and execution of the scenes can make all the difference in the world.

In the TDK you have this world (I refuse to say it's realistic) that is easy to buy into. This is a world without aliens and superpowers, so a maniac blowing up hospitals seems massive in scope.

Superman is so much more powerful, it's much more difficult to challenge him, or make a situation feel that dangerous. If there is a heavy object falling onto a crowded street you know Superman will catch it, if there is a bus full of children hanging from a bridge you know he'll push them to safety, if an airplane is going to crash you know he'll swoop in and help it land. For most characters those things would seem like a massive event, for Superman it's all in a days work. Not that those scenes aren't enjoyable but at some point in the film it needs to go to another level. For the threat to feel massive in a Superman film, it needs to be a crisis of biblical proportions, and it needs to feel like it's actually the end of the world, not that Metropolis is the only city in peril. I want to see devastation all around him, and all accross the globe. I want it to be impossible for him to save everyone, and for it seem impossible that he can even turn the tide. Otherwise, (unless the set up and execution to a lower stakes scenario is absolutely brilliant), it's going to feel a bit underwhelming.

 

[VenomsMom]

It was because The Joker was a constant presense in the movie. He made himself known to Gotham, and had several great scenes with Batman.

Lex's plot in SR (despite the stupid con-man gimmick), felt like a side-plot and it didn't feel like it drove the story at all. There was a disconnection because the majority of Lex scenes dealt with only him and his crew. The only time he interacted with the rest of the main cast was near the end. Even then, that was not enough.

That was a problem in Superman: The MOtion Picture but at least, there were more things happening (like Superman's origins, etc). You can accept it for what it was. In SR, it was a different story...

There was never any real interaction between Supes and Lex until the island scene and that was it. No one even knew Lex was the threat causing the chaos. Here you have the main solo villain in the movie and it was like for most of the movie he didnt exist. Finally when you got the anticipated meeting between them Supes didnt have much to say. You just never got that cohesion like TDK accomplished.

 

[true316]

Add to that, he was written as a cruel, calculating menace that a) presented the hero with impossibly costly choices with dire consequences either way, b) decapitated his competition, c) turned the people against the people's hero, and d) turned the people against each other. Not to mention exploiting police corruption and other things here and there. Very 'Art Of War'.


Don't you get the feeling that if SR's Lex and his henchmen went up against TDK's Joker and his....it wouldn't even be a contest? Heck....even SR's Superman against TDK's Joker.....

No contest, Joker and his goons can hold his own against SR's Superman.

Pfffttt... you guys know nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vojXK_mnA

 

[Wally West]

Pfffttt... you guys know nothing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01vojXK_mnA

I have to say they've got a point. Obviously I'm not suggesting the Joker was so bad*** he could take Superman down easily. But he felt like a much more dangerous villian than Lex did in SR. If the TDK's Joker had Superman in the same situation Lex had him in in SR you'd have to think that instead of stabing him in the side with a Kryptonite dagger and having his goons toss him off into the ocean like Lex did, that the joker would break off the the dagger and shove it down Superman's throat and watch him choke on it.

 

[KalMart]

You couldn't be more right. The set up and execution of the scenes can make all the difference in the world.

In the TDK you have this world (I refuse to say it's realistic) that is easy to buy into. This is a world without aliens and superpowers, so a maniac blowing up hospitals seems massive in scope.

Superman is so much more powerful, it's much more difficult to challenge him, or make a situation feel that dangerous. If there is a heavy object falling onto a crowded street you know Superman will catch it, if there is a bus full of children hanging from a bridge you know he'll push them to safety, if an airplane is going to crash you know he'll swoop in and help it land. For most characters those things would seem like a massive event, for Superman it's all in a days work. Not that those scenes aren't enjoyable but at some point in the film it needs to go to another level. For the threat to feel massive in a Superman film, it needs to be a crisis of biblical proportions, and it needs to feel like it's actually the end of the world, not that Metropolis is the only city in peril. I want to see devastation all around him, and all accross the globe. I want it to be impossible for him to save everyone, and for it seem impossible that he can even turn the tide. Otherwise, (unless the set up and execution to a lower stakes scenario is absolutely brilliant), it's going to feel a bit underwhelming.

Not only that, but I think there have to be some high stakes for the hero...beyond just fighting evil, etc.. In Supes' case, I think his place in the world has to be somehow threatened as well. Because when it really comes down to it, Superman isn't just about his strength/power...it's his spirit that makes him super. If you can break that spirit, then you've really beaten him. What better way to break his spirit than to make the world, his adopted home, not want him? Then, when he's having the 'big battle', it's not just that he's trying to win the fight, he's trying to win back his standing and what he represents.

This was stuff I was toying with in various conversations from way back in another forum, regarding someone like Braniac, for example....

http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showpost.php?p=1148460&postcount=7
http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showpost.php?p=1560668&postcount=42


...some of it went of the premise that there was going to be a sequel to SR, but still, we discussed different concepts that could work independently of that.


...then TDK came out, and Joker basically covered a lot of those points ....as we've discussed here. But in general, that's what these big battles have to be if we're really going to feel it. They've got to mean something beyond just the size and scope of the battle itself, they have to be about what the hero represents. I don't think it's just a case of expecting more from a Superman fight because he's so much more powerful. TDK's conflicts weren't as compelling as they were because the viewer lowers their standards/expectations when watching mere humans fighting. It's more about how the plot is weaved together, what's at stake for the characters involved, and how these events will inevitably change their lives.

Of course we expect Superman to do more than just stop a truck or what have you. But even if he punches a gigantic robot/ship/landslide into no-man's land...and all we end up with is people cheering and him waving...it's still 'meh'....just like at the end of the plane rescue or gattling gun sequences in SR. It's like he's only showing off his powers, but not really accomplishing much more than that.

 

[Wally West]

Not only that, but I think there have to be some high stakes for the hero...beyond just fighting evil, etc.. In Supes' case, I think his place in the world has to be somehow threatened as well. Because when it really comes down to it, Superman isn't just about his strength/power...it's his spirit that makes him super. If you can break that spirit, then you've really beaten him. What better way to break his spirit than to make the world, his adopted home, not want him? Then, when he's having the 'big battle', it's not just that he's trying to win the fight, he's trying to win back his standing and what he represents.
This was stuff I was toying with in various conversations from way back in another forum, regarding someone like Braniac, for example....

http://www.bluetights.net/theplanet/showpost.php?p=1148460&postcount=7


...then TDK came out, and Joker basically covered a lot of those points ....as we've discussed here. But in general, that's what these big battles have to be if we're really going to feel it. They've got to mean something beyond just the size and scope of the battle itself, they have to be about what the hero represents. I don't think it's just a case of expecting more from a Superman fight because he's so much more powerful. TDK's conflicts weren't as compelling as they were because the viewer lowers their standards/expectations when watching mere humans fighting. It's more about how the plot is weaved together, what's at stake for the characters involved, and how these events will inevitably change their lives.

I totally agree. In fact I've thought about that alot and I want future films to portray Luthor as being extremely powerful, influential, and respected so he can be the driving force behind the world being wary of Superman. Not only does that add weight to Superman's plight, it makes Lex a formidable opponent on multiple levels. I want to see Superman feel like he is unappreciated and unwanted and that he needs to earn the public's respect. If they can achieve that then, like you suggested seeing him save the day is a much bigger pay off. I'd like to see Superman burst onto the world stage and be a sensation. While Lex is initially intrigued by Superman, the adoration of the masses eventually rubs his ego in all the wrong ways, eating at him, letting his pride and envy get the better of him. Soon a battle between Superman and another alien(I like Brainiac in this case because he can be tied to Krypton, and would work in an initial film ) leaves massive destruction in it's wake. Luthor could then conceivably sway public opinion by suggesting that Superman is using Earth as a battle ground for inter-galactic conflicts that we shouldn't have to suffer through. That anti-alien sentiment could be used as platform for Luthor's political aspirations as well.

There's multiple ways they could achieve that letting the story play out differently than I described, but I agree Superman is often portrayed to be so powerful and so adored it's hard to relate to him as a character, and having him fighting for acceptance and respect as well as fighting seemingly insurmountable odds would make his victories infinitely more rewarding.

 

[KalMart]

That's why TDK's ending was such an interesting twist on things...in that Batman decided to take the heat for things and sacrifice his standing for the sake of giving Gotham a martyr...something to uphold THEIR spirit. Otherwise, if they found out what really happened to Dent, it would dash their hopes for upholding what's right, since he represented that to them. Because if they did find out, as he said, the Joker would have truly won. One can only hope that level of creativity could be applied to a Superman story, but obviously, with Supes still coming out on top.

 

[KalMart]

I totally agree. In fact I've thought about that alot and I want future films to portray Luthor as being extremely powerful, influential, and respected so he can be the driving force behind the world being wary of Superman. I want to see Superman feel like he is unappreciated and unwanted and that he needs to earn the public's respect. If they can achieve that then, like you suggested seeing him save the day is a much bigger pay off. I'd like to see Superman burst onto the world stage and be a sensation. While Lex is initially intrigued by Superman, the adoration of the masses eventually rubs his ego in all the wrong ways, eating at him, letting his pride and envy get the better of him. Soon a battle between Superman and another alien(I like Brainiac in this case because he can be tied to Krypton, and would work in an initial film ) leaves massive destruction in it's wake. Luthor could then conceivably sway public opinion by suggesting that Superman is using Earth as a battle ground for inter-galactic conflicts that we shouldn't have to suffer through. That anti-alien sentiment could be used as platform for Luthor's political asperations as well.

There's multiple ways they could achieve that letting the story play out differently than I described, but I agree Superman is often portrayed to be so powerful and so adored it's hard to relate to him as a character, and having him fighting for acceptance and respect as well as fighting seemingly insurmountable odds would make his victories infinitely more rewarding.

There's also the idea of playing on the 'envy of mortals' and such when it comes to Supes. If anyone knew the kind of technology and capabilities his fortress of solitude contained...Kryptonian-based and way more advanced than ours....I think more than a few folks would wonder why he doesn't share it with us. Look how much it costs us to go into space, and how inefficient it is...whereas he probably has the capabilities to build a self-sufficient space ship that can easily do a round trip. Perhaps we wouldn't have lost the lives of 10 or more astronauts in shuttle disasters if he helped us build a better shuttle. Maybe the scientific knowledge contained in the FOS could help us find a cure for cancer. And yet, he doesn't share it...why....because we don't deserve it? Because we aren't Super, like him?

Someone like Luthor could lobby off of that...in the movies thus far, Luthor discovers the FOS, but keeps stuff for himself etc....screw that, what if he exposes it to the world? And perhaps someone like Braniac....with his highly advanced capabilities...could fool people into thinking that he can provide them with that...while Supes just sits there and keeps it to himself. Sure, Supes helps us out a lot and saves a lot of people....but he still leaves us holding the ball when it coms to a lot things that he could easily assist in just by sharing some of his knowledge or science. That's how you turn the people against Supes....you make them jealous, and you make them feel underprivileged.

 

[Wally West]

There's also the idea of playing on the 'envy of mortals' and such when it comes to Supes. If anyone knew the kind of technology and capabilities his fortress of solitude contained...Kryptonian-based and way more advanced than ours....I think more than a few folks would wonder why he doesn't share it with us. Look how much it costs us to go into space, and how inefficient it is...whereas he probably has the capabilities to build a self-sufficient space ship that can easily do a round trip. Perhaps we wouldn't have lost the lives of 10 or more astronauts in shuttle disasters if he helped us build a better shuttle. Maybe the scientific knowledge contained in the FOS could help us find a cure for cancer. And yet, he doesn't share it...why....because we don't deserve it? Because we aren't Super, like him?

Someone like Luthor could lobby off of that, and perhaps someone like Braniac....with his highly advanced capabilities...could fool people into thinking that he can provide them with that...while Supes just sits there and keeps it to himself. Sure, Supes helps us out a lot and saves a lot of people....but he still leaves us holding the ball when it coms to a lot things that he could easily assist in just by sharing some of his knowledge or science. That's how you turn the people against Supes....you make them jealous, and you make them feel underprivileged.

One could only dream they'd portray Lex in such an utterly brilliant and masterfully manipulative fashion. Of course, some of those arguments might be almost too compelling. If it played out that way, they'd have to emphasize during the film that Luthor's claims (at least regarding a cure for cancer and so forth) were self serving and baseless.

Technological advances for the shuttle program is one thing, but if Superman was indeed shown to be sitting on a potential cure for cancer it could sway the audiences' sympathies in Luthor's favor just as easily (and undesirably) as it would the fictitious residents of metropolis. One could always argue that Kal-El is forbidden to interfere with human history, but still that raises some interesting and complex philosophical questions. He thinks nothing of saving a jumbo jet with 200 passengers that's experiencing engine failure, but he's willing to let millions of cancer patients die slowly in agony...that creates a grey area you definitely want to stay away from.

Like I said though, if it's shown to be an ultimately baseless claim for the sole purpose of Luthor's agenda, then that's a terrific idea.

 

[KalMart]

One could only dream they'd portray Lex in such an utterly brilliant and masterfully manipulative fashion. Of course, some of those arguments might be almost too compelling. If it played out that way, they'd have to emphasize during the film that Luthor's claims (at least regarding a cure for cancer and so forth) were self serving and baseless.

Technological advances for the shuttle program is one thing, but if Superman was indeed shown to be sitting on a potential cure for cancer it could sway the audiences' sympathies in Luthor's favor just as easily (and undesirably) as it would the fictitious residents of metropolis. One could always argue that Kal-El is forbidden to interfere with human history, but still that raises some interesting and complex philosophical questions. He thinks nothing of saving a jumbo jet with 200 passengers that's experiencing engine failure, but he's willing to let millions of cancer patients die slowly in agony...that creates a grey area you definitely want to stay away from.

Like I said though, if it's shown to be an ultimately baseless claim for the sole purpose of Luthor's agenda, then that's a terrific idea.

Well, yeah, at a certain point, some may say "He's a comic book hero, dude....why bring in all this realistic crap?", or that the character was never meant to be a philosophical answer to some of life's great quagmires, etc. Or that the more you try to apply realistic rationality/scrutiny to any part of the character's story, the more you tear down the entire thing. I see it as an interesting challenge, one that if weighed out fairly enough within the envelope of fiction...so as not to destroy the 'fun' of it, makes the story more compelling. Especially if you can construct a dynamic struggle/challenge for the hero around it.

On the other hand, I guess that was some of the thought process behind making Superman a heartbroken outsider, watching the woman he loves start a family without him in SR. Not exactly the kind of 'real-life' problems one looks for in a Superhero movie. Add to that, the big 'struggle' that he had to overcome by being Superman...saving the city and the whole lifting the island thing ....didn't really do anything to help that. He didn't really get his girl back....and if he had, we'd have to question the righteousness of breaking up what was evidently already a happy and healthy family structure. But hey....it's a comic-book movie, right?

Anyway, this is about the villain, and how to threaten and defeat the most powerful being in the world. Simple.....turn the world against him, and make him quit.

 

[NotFadeAway]

Brainiac is ofcourse an obvious choice for the next film. However, if there is to be a second villain, like in Batman Begins, I say use Mongul(he's like a more accessible version of Darkseid and definately more interesting than Doomsday).

I'd actually be cool with Mongul being a main villian in a movie at some point. Like you said, more accessible than Darkseid and more of a character than Doomsday.

 

[CLARKY]

I think one of the biggest keys to the success of the next Superman film is the villian. Superman needs to go up against a threatening baddie NOT named Lex Luthor. The film can have Lex around, but not as the focus or the villian this time, slowly build up Lex as a corporate mongul/politician.

I agree with that precise argument of yours. One of the biggest keys is the villain. I would not mind Lex as a smaller role in order to make the transition. But I see things as a sequel not as a reboot. I still think the franchise should go on. anyway I agree.

I hate when comic book movies and sci-fi/fantasy flicks in general have there villians talk a big game, yet accomplish nothing. Not to beat a dead horse, but look at The Dark Knight and Star Trek. The villians in both films actually killed and destroyed a great deal, up until the end of the film the villians got the better of the good guys, and that made those films better.

I disagree a bit. I did not see Star trek but for the DK, God, I completely disagree, the Joker was all big talk. Sure he killed people but come on, he was so fake. I do not wish to see this kind of character in a Superman movie.
I mean, in SR, Lex was about to kill millions of people, I disagree with his reasons to do it btw, but come on , the guy was destructive enough. What I read in your post in just the generic american bad guy killing enough people to be almost sure to die by the hand of the good guy (always for good reasons of course).

Lets say Braniac is the villian in the next film. I want to see atleast brief scenes of Braniac destroying worlds across the galaxy. And when Braniac comes to Earth, let him destroy a DCU city or two not named Metropolis. Have Braniac destroy Hub City, for example. Have Superman fail to save the day at some point during the film, show Superman picking himself up off the ground and charging forward.

I think I understand what you mean, but I do not enjoy seeing complete galaxies destructed just to explain to me "this is the bad guy, the hero has to stop him". That is über-generic and almost fake. and violent too. Let's say I'm superman and I see Brainiac destroying 2 cities after having done the same with 2 universe, I will certainly not come to say hello, would you mind if I stop you. I go for it and kill him. And if superman does not kill him, it is completely fake. Come on. I think what you want is GI Joe villains. "We are mean, we kill". Evil has to have a face. Always.

And please, no more campy villians, like Luthor and Zod in the Donnerverse. Please make the audience hate the villian as much as they love Superman. I think it's essential.

I did not feel that Zod was campy. But the standards were different 30 years ago, I would suppose. With the increasingly violence in the movies, I suppose the next Zod would have to kill millions and smiling about it, in order to satisfy people's hunger for realistic bad guys. Not my taste at all.

What I read in your post was : let's have a villain who destroy galaxies, that is cruel and mean, and cruel and mean and destructive, not on the long term, but right here, in front of the camera. Be sure he is evil.
For me it looks like a caricature without subtilities. Yet I agree with you, Luthor has been done and done, let's have something different a bit. This, without me sharing the same ideas as B.Singer. I disliked some aspects of his movie, but I think there is room for improvement.