Marvel's losing its edge and DC's getting its back

[metaphysician]

For Man of Steel, I am skeptical for the following reasons:

1. Zach Snyder has never done anything to convince me he can do the proper tone for a Superman story

2. Talk about a major portion of the story being a "war on Krypton", which sounds like a huge opportunity to miss the point

3. Marketing talk that's enthusiastic about how "dark" it is

None of these are game breakers, but until I actually see a trailer, they give me cause for concern.

As for JLA? That's more straightforward: I am 100% certain WB is going to try and rush it to ride the coattails of Avengers, and screw it up.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

For Man of Steel, I am skeptical for the following reasons:

1. Zach Snyder has never done anything to convince me he can do the proper tone for a Superman story

Fair enough.

However, Snyder impressed the hell out of me with Watchmen, and 300, Legends of the Guardian, and Dawn of the Dead were far better films than people give credit for.

The tone won't deter me.

2. Talk about a major portion of the story being a "war on Krypton", which sounds like a huge opportunity to miss the point

I'm not worried about this at all, to be honest. Why does it worry you so much?

3. Marketing talk that's enthusiastic about how "dark" it is

Eh, I believe people are confusing 'edgy' with 'dark'. MoS won't be Thor but it won't be TDK either.

None of these are game breakers, but until I actually see a trailer, they give me cause for concern.

Understandable. We all have concerns prior to the first trailer hitting the web... and afterwards.

As for JLA? That's more straightforward: I am 100% certain WB is going to try and rush it to ride the coattails of Avengers, and screw it up.

I was critical myself at first, but hey, WB supposedly hired a good writer and made Christopher Nolan the President of Production for DC films. I'm willing to give WB another shot here.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Zod and the War on Krypton is frankly pretty meh to me, and if they wanted to start over and be more "grounded", well, too bad, because Grant Morrison did that sh** 100 times better than they ever will. The whole re-imagining the Golden Age costume as jeans was brilliant. That was a great, retro, modern take with tons of room for sequel potential because they illustrated him getting stronger. That could've been like Spider-Man, but way more pulpy, with the threats ever increasing. The Zod thing just, eh, I know he'll finally get to fight someone but after all these years the most imagination anyone has is "...Zod".

 

[marcvader]

The only concern I have is the over use of slomo.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Oh yes, let's get Doomsday or Darkseid or Brainiac in the first installment because the great Optimus says so. Zod makes alot of sense for an origin film and he hasn't been seen on the big screen in almost 30 years.

I'm glad that Snyder is being patient here. I say build up the threats (Brainiac for the sequel, Darkseid for Justice League and Doomsday for the finale).

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

But do you really believe the Hangover can be stretched into a franchise that spans a decade? I find that hard to believe.


As a DC fan and Green Lantern fan I really wanted the Green Lantern film to succeed and I too was sad it didn't work. As entertaining as some of these DTVs have been settling for "DC does well with animation" has become a hollow and unsatisfying 2nd place prize.

Panthro, let's face it. WB will be fine.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Oh yes, let's get Doomsday or Darkseid or Brainiac in the first installment because the great Optimus says so. Zod makes alot of sense for an origin film and he hasn't been seen on the big screen in almost 30 years.

I'm glad that Snyder is being patient here. I say build up the threats (Brainiac for the sequel, Darkseid for Justice League and Doomsday for the finale).

Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about Doomsday or Darkseid. That's not what Grant Morrison did, like, at all.

Darkseid isn't really a true Superman villain anyways. All his story is tied to New Gods and Justice League more appropriately.

The only reason they go with Zod is lazy writing. People are already quasi familiar with him and he can be lazily written into any Superman story -- you just tie him in Superman's origin. Superman has a pretty strong staple of villains like Parasite, Bizarro, Metallo, Toyman for example who haven't been used. You really can't do a Metallo sequel after a Zod movie either. Superman has more than just two villains ya know.

 

[HighFivingMF]

The only reason they go with Zod is lazy writing. People are already quasi familiar with him and he can be lazily written into any Superman story -- you just tie him in Superman's origin. Superman has a pretty strong staple of villains like Parasite, Bizarro, Metallo, Toyman for example who haven't been used. You really can't do a Metallo sequel after a Zod movie either. Superman has more than just two villains ya know.

Or the thing that's probably actually true. Zod fits the theme Goyer was going for just like Scarecrow fit the fear theme, Joker fit the chaos theme, and Bane fits the pain theme. I'd rather an entirely new interpretation of an already used villain than a new villain for the sake of a new villain if the former suits the story best.

Do you know how many people are in the movie-going public? A lot. Do you know what percentage of them have seen the original Superman movies or know what a Zod is? Not many.

 

[marcvader]

What percentage of the movie going public do you think has seen Superman 2? Not many? Really? So the people that have seen Superman 2 are either dead or are too old to go to the movies because that movie is sooooo old?

 

[HighFivingMF]

What percentage of the movie going public do you think has seen Superman 2? Not many? Really? So the people that have seen Superman 2 are either dead or are too old to go to the movies because that movie is sooooo old?

No... I meant the thing that make sense.

People born since then make the number of people who haven't seen it much greater.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Villains like Metallo or Bizarro make no damn sense for an origin film. As for Parasite, I'm hoping he gets picked up (in some form) as a JLA threat. His potential as a villain could skyrocket if he absorbs Batman's intellect, Superman's strength, Flash's speed, etc. on the big screen.

You can whine all you want that it's lazy writing, but General Zod is top-tier villain who has a long rich history with Superman. For an origin movie, it's a damn good idea to start with Zod due to his physicality and cunning attributes. The parallels between Kal-El and Dru-Zod also make for a excellent story.

 

[roach]

What percentage of the movie going public do you think has seen Superman 2? Not many? Really? So the people that have seen Superman 2 are either dead or are too old to go to the movies because that movie is sooooo old?

people in their 30s and 40s

 

[marcvader]

Yes I know. I'm 40. Just making a point that more people than you think from the general movie going public have seen Superman 2 and know who Zod is. It's not such a small group.

 

[roach]

im 40 also...I was agreeing with you

 

[marcvader]

 

[roach]

"Kneel before Zod" is a part of my vocabulary

 

[marcvader]

As it should be. That has to be one of if not the most memorable line in a cbm.

 

[metaphysician]

Fair enough.

However, Snyder impressed the hell out of me with Watchmen, and 300, Legends of the Guardian, and Dawn of the Dead were far better films than people give credit for.

The tone won't deter me.

Problem is, none of those had anything like the tone a Superman movie should have. And the only super hero film amongst them, Watchmen. . . is the diametric opposite.

I'm not worried about this at all, to be honest. Why does it worry you so much?

I see two possible failure modes here:

1. Too much time spent focusing on Krypton detracts from the most important parts of Superman's origin, his upbringing by the Kents.

2. Too much time spent on both Krypton *and* SMallville results in a movie wherein too little time is spent on the actual hero of the story: Daily Planet reporter Clark Kent ( as opposed to "growing teenager Clark" ).

Neither is certain, and both could happen even without a war on Krypton, but adding an additional major subplot eats up valuable screen time.

Eh, I believe people are confusing 'edgy' with 'dark'. MoS won't be Thor but it won't be TDK either.

I definitely hope so, but I have little confidence in WB. It just comes down to whether the mistake is in the marketing department or the management department ( I hope marketing ).

Understandable. We all have concerns prior to the first trailer hitting the web... and afterwards.



I was critical myself at first, but hey, WB supposedly hired a good writer and made Christopher Nolan the President of Production for DC films. I'm willing to give WB another shot here.

Eh, we'll see. Christopher Nolan is extremely good, but aside from Batman, his own prior works don't really give him any track record as far as the tone needed for the rest of the DCU. Until and unless MoS turns out good, I don't consider his attachment to any other DC project to be anything more than neutral ( which is admittedly not the worst possibility ). And even that depends on how much political capital he retains inside WB; if he can't actually make decisions and make them stick, it won't matter if his name is on the letterhead.

 

[metaphysician]

As for what villain they should have used, I remain partial to Brainiac, myself, for a couple reasons:

1. He's an iconic Superman villain

2. . . . who is not Lex Luther. . .

3. . . . who Superman can actually get into a credible fight with. . .

4. . . . and who can be tied into Krypton and its destruction

Which is to say, they should shamelessly steal from Superman: TAS, and have Brainiac be a Kryptonian AI who is responsible ( one way or another ) for Krypton's destruction. Superman defeating Brainiac can thus represent Superman symbolically living up to the hopes of his long-dead parents, by saving a world from the threat that destroyed there own.

Obviously, this isn't happening, but I can still dream.

 

[HighFivingMF]

1. He's an iconic Superman villain

2. . . . who is not Lex Luther. . .

3. . . . who Superman can actually get into a credible fight with. . .

4. . . . and who can be tied into Krypton and its destruction

Those are all also Zod.

 

[metaphysician]

Those are all also Zod.

Yes, but given Zod has also already been used, I'd prefer to save him for later. If I had my druthers, he'd be the villain of the third movie, against which Superman and Lex have to team up.

 

[Captain Marvel]

and if they wanted to start over and be more "grounded", well, too bad, because Grant Morrison did that sh** 100 times better than they ever will. The whole re-imagining the Golden Age costume as jeans was brilliant.

It was awful and Grant Morrison is a generally terrible writer who craps on anything he comes into contact with.

 

[HighFivingMF]

It was awful and Grant Morrison is a generally terrible writer who craps on anything he comes into contact with.

And you're a liar.

 

[marcvader]

Now children...

 

[The Overlord]

Villains like Metallo or Bizarro make no damn sense for an origin film. As for Parasite, I'm hoping he gets picked up (in some form) as a JLA threat. His potential as a villain could skyrocket if he absorbs Batman's intellect, Superman's strength, Flash's speed, etc. on the big screen.

You can whine all you want that it's lazy writing, but General Zod is top-tier villain who has a long rich history with Superman. For an origin movie, it's a damn good idea to start with Zod due to his physicality and cunning attributes. The parallels between Kal-El and Dru-Zod also make for a excellent story.

Why do we need so much focus on the origin though? Why not just cover the origin for 10 to 20 minutes and then move Superman Metropolis where he can fight Metallo or something? Superman's origin has already been told a million times, why tell it again? Everyone knows it.

Going with Zod just seems uncreative and it makes them seem like they are playing it safe rather then taking a risk and trying something new. When they rebooted Batman in 2005, they went with new villains that had not been seen on screen before.

Frankly guys like Metallo and Parasite work best as starting villains, villains Superman faces when he is just starting out. You can't have a movie featuring a thug with super powers, after Superman has defeated an alien invader, that lower the stakes rather then raises them. Plus having a never ending parade of alien invaders could become repetitive pretty quickly. So starting out with Zod, then moving on to Brainiac and ending with Darkseid, would not be a good way to go.

This goes into more detail on why Zod is not the best villain to start with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbLlIs5cEj4