• We experienced a brief downtime due to a Xenforo server configuration update. This was an attempt to limit bot traffic. They have rolled back and the site is now operating normally. Apologies for the inconvinience.

Superman Returns No Supervillians in Superman Returns; A very wise decision.

K

Kane

Guest
I was watching Batman Begins again, and I realized how well it works when the villians are real and human. Even Ras, a very magical/mystical based character in the comics, was portrayed in a very real, human manner.

Superman may be an alien, but in this film...hes very human (possibly more real than any previous Superman portrayal)....meaning a non-geek audience of all ages would be able to enjoy the film without being alienated (no pun intended).

I think their approach was right...build up an audience first with a very human movie (bringing Supes back to the bigscreen for the first time in 30 years)....and then break into more sci-fi based comicbook stuff for the future films (supervillians like Brainiac, Metallo etc....)

If we can objectify this decision outside the realm of being hardcore comicbook fans, it does actually seem like a very reasonable and logical apporach for the mainstream audience, who likely arent major sci-fi fans. Everyone (comicbook fans or not) know that Superman's arch nemesis has always been Lex Luthor, and that familiarity will be a good draw for them to see this flick. The great thing is both writers confirmed (via Moviehole.com) that supervillians will appear in the sequels and alot of elements relating to the sequels will be set up in Superman Returns.

So I'm finally convinced this was a wise decision, what do you guys think?
 
I am in agreement with you. The main point I can pick out is that most are familiar with Lex Luthor as his #1 baddy and it helps draw people in because they are already a bit familiar with the character. I also think the change in Lex's attitude will be a big help in him being a formidable advisary for Superman. Bring in Lex to begin with, and even have him in the next movie, with a more physical threat to Superman.
 
Yes. Also I think if this movie featured a supervillian like Brainiac or Darkseid, Lex would have taken a backseat and got outshined (turned into a pawn). That wouldnt have been good for the first film.

Zod made Lex into his b^tch in Superman II and Zod isnt even that central or that great of a Superman rogue.

I think this is also the very first time Superman and Lex have really gone at it in a major way in a motion picture. Its the first time both will likely acknowledge each other as their arch rivals and really bring it.
 
I don't think villains would have "ruined" the movie per se, but I think your insight is very logical
:up:
 
Yes, thats another thing I like about Returns. Lex and Superman will finally get the scenes we've been looking forward too. Lex actually poses more of a threat to Superman this time around. The physical confrontation between the two is going to be amazing. I think the whole movie will build this up, they never talk to each other directly until the end. I think it was a smart move to use Lex in this way and save the "supervillains" for later sequels.
 
Superman being on a completely different level of power of course leads to him facing enemies who can match him in some way. (Lex's would be his superior intellect, since no one could think of how to utilize superman's fortress like he does.).

He may not be able to blow fireballs out his bottom but his greatest power is also the most dangerious one of all, the mind. Superman faces beings from other planets, clones, and such while The bat faces his regular group of deformed mutant humans and magicians, but Luthor is something else... he is a great manipulator and master terrorist. If you've seen M. Night's movie, Unbreakable, you'd have noticed how much Mr. Glass was based on Lex Luthor. THAT is a true supervillian, Lex has always been one, one who can think circles around you and always be a step ahead. Bashing their face in won't matter because they've already got you where they want you with a trap ready to spring...

I think we are getting a supervillian in returns. but not the hulking type, we're getting the intellectual type... what do I say to that?

BRING IT ON!
 
Yes I agree Mr Glass in Unbreakable was amazing, but what was great was the contrast between the two men.

Bruce Willis was a man, hidden to the world and unsure of his place, but with incredible strength and the need to do good.

My glass; an incredible intellect, but a weak fragile man who could easily break his bones....also unsure of his place in the world.

But when Willis discovered he was the hero, Glass discovered he must be the villian.

Great film and it really parallels the greatness of using Superman VS Lex for this picture.
 
I_Hate_U_All said:
Superman being on a completely different level of power of course leads to him facing enemies who can match him in some way. (Lex's would be his superior intellect, since no one could think of how to utilize superman's fortress like he does.).

He may not be able to blow fireballs out his bottom but his greatest power is also the most dangerious one of all, the mind. Superman faces beings from other planets, clones, and such while The bat faces his regular group of deformed mutant humans and magicians, but Luthor is something else... he is a great manipulator and master terrorist. If you've seen M. Night's movie, Unbreakable, you'd have noticed how much Mr. Glass was based on Lex Luthor. THAT is a true supervillian, Lex has always been one, one who can think circles around you and always be a step ahead. Bashing their face in won't matter because they've already got you where they want you with a trap ready to spring...

I think we are getting a supervillian in returns. but not the hulking type, we're getting the intellectual type... what do I say to that?

BRING IT ON!

Well played. I never thought about Mr. Glass being related to Luthor, but now that you mention it I see that perfectly. He caused all those disasters just to find the one man that was his exact opposite. And thats what makes Lex such a threat to Superman. Lex gets to Superman in a way that very few can.
 
BB had Scarecrow and Ra's. Batman is human, that is why villians like Two-Face, Joker, Riddler, Ra's (AKA, villians with no powers) work for him.

Superman needs a physical threat, and an evil continent doesn't cut it. Luthor needs muscle. Someone like Metallo would've been perfect, he could've been explained in five minutes, Luthor could've created him, and we could've had an epic battle.
 
I agree. There's also the fact that most super villains, Superman's in particular, have ridiculous names.
 
theogt said:
I agree. There's also the fact that most super villains, Superman's in particular, have ridiculous names.

Metallo wouldn't have to be called Metallo, Corben would've been just fine.
 
Matt said:
Metallo wouldn't have to be called Metallo, Corben would've been just fine.
What about Larry? That's a menacing name.
 
Theres also the fact that Superman 1 is still the greatest of all the Superman movies so far (100% Donner) and it didnt need to rely on a supervillian either.

I think the approach of this film alone is a very real movie (well as real as you can possibly make an alien character) and alot of the sci-fi elements will likely take a backseat for the first film (thus no Supervillians). I think theyre primarily just trying to draw in a mainstream audience and bring Superman back afer 30 years. The depth of a film is always more interesting to me than the action. SR will definately have some epic (long, drawn out) action sequences but if it can capture that Superman/Luthor contrast that Unbreakable tried to do, that'd be amazing.
 
It'd be nice to see Metallo brought in the sequel. I think he'd work really well, we'd have a good battle with him and Supes.
 
Kane said:
Theres also the fact that Superman 1 is still the greatest of all the Superman movies so far (100% Donner) and it didnt need to rely on a supervillian either.

I think the approach of this film alone is a very real movie (well as real as you can possibly make an alien character) and alot of the sci-fi elements will likely take a backseat for the first film (thus no Supervillians). I think theyre primarily just trying to draw in a mainstream audience and bring Superman back afer 30 years. The depth of a film is always more interesting to me than the action. SR will definately have some epic (long, drawn out) action sequences but if it can capture that Superman/Luthor contrast that Unbreakable tried to do, that'd be amazing.

Why do we need a "real" Superman movie?
 
Matt said:
Why do we need a "real" Superman movie?
I simply prefer one. I think it makes a better movie. Otherwise it becomes too..."fake". ;)
 
theogt said:
I agree. There's also the fact that most super villains, Superman's in particular, have ridiculous names.

Yeah, Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus aka Doc Ock are really non-ridiculous names. :O
 
Matt said:
Why do we need a "real" Superman movie?

Because a film too based into the comic-book elements and sci-fi aspects may alienate the mainsteam audience. Bringing Superman to the motion picture industry after 30 years is a risky business and they definately picked the most logical route... to build on the familiarity of the Superman/Luthor classic rivarly.

There will be a truckload of people who will see this film, never having seen the Donner movies or even the animated series, but they'll likely still know who Superman and Lex Luthor are. Both are great timeless figures and thus Lex is the perfect starting point to bring Superman back.
 
Showtime029 said:
Yeah, Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus aka Doc Ock are really non-ridiculous names. :O

Tell me you didn't just say that. I agree, haha. Lets not forget, Vulture, Rhino, Shocker, Electro. When it comes down to it, many of each heroes villains have goofy names. Its not just Superman. :)
 
I don't think the names of the villians would make a movie any less real, it's how the villian are potrayed that is the key. They have to be grounded into reality.
 
Showtime029 said:
Yeah, Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus aka Doc Ock are really non-ridiculous names. :O
Yeah, I agree that they are. Read the post. I said "MOST SUPERVILLAINS". This included those. Fortunately they rarely used those names in the movies. Ock was usually called his real name and I can't remember if the GG was ever actually called the GG.
 
theogt said:
Yeah, I agree that they are. Read the post. I said "MOST SUPERVILLAINS". This included those. Fortunately they rarely used those names in the movies. Ock was usually called his real name and I can't remember if the GG was ever actually called the GG.

I was just about to mention that about Doc Ock. I think Jameson and the guy in the Bugle made that reference once throughout the whole movie, which makes it better and there wasn't complaints. They could pull the same off with Metallo, maybe someone refrence him as metallo, but call him Corben through out the movie.
 
Ya I think obviously names like 'Metallo' and 'Brainiac' will be devised by the Daily Planet writers or media as names for these villians.

'Superman' was also a name devised by the media.

In the movie itself, they can call them John Corben and Milton Fine or Vril Dox.
 
Kane said:
Because a film too based into the comic-book elements and sci-fi aspects may alienate the mainsteam audience. Bringing Superman to the motion picture industry after 30 years is a risky business and they definately picked the most logical route... to build on the familiarity of the Superman/Luthor classic rivarly.

There will be a truckload of people who will see this film, never having seen the Donner movies or even the animated series, but they'll likely still know who Superman and Lex Luthor are. Both are great timeless figures and thus Lex is the perfect starting point to bring Superman back.

Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man, Jurrassic Park, The Matrix. Five of the highest grossing movies of all time. None of which are grounded in reality. I'll take a sci-fi/comic approach over a soap opera approach any day.
 
theogt said:
Yeah, I agree that they are. Read the post. I said "MOST SUPERVILLAINS". This included those. Fortunately they rarely used those names in the movies. Ock was usually called his real name and I can't remember if the GG was ever actually called the GG.

I wasn't playing off that, you mentioned "Superman in particular" so I was responding to that. Either way you are right about toning down the names or not amping them up.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"