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

[dpm07]

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.

Excellent Post.

I completely agree with everything you said. There's no reason there can't be a great story and a great supervillain battle to climax the film. I think Singer dropped the ball with this, and while the film will probably have a strong opening, I don't think it will hold up under repeated viewing because of a lack of action. People I have talked to in the mainstream have already said that they are disappointed Superman's not throwing down with anyone.

 

[Cinemaman]

I still think New Krypton is better idea than supevillian.

The main question is how Superman will stop NK?

There is no answer. So that is why it looks like very intersting task for Superman.

 

[Octoberist]

Either way, Singer will truely drop the ball if there is no super-POWERED villian in the sequel. And no, I'm over the idea of Zod. There's more villians out there to use.

 

[raybia]

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?

Yes indeed. God forbid that we have a Supervillian as a formidable enemy to a Superhero in a Super hero movie like Superman who is essentially considered the premier God-like Granddaddy of all Superheros. When I go see Superhero movies I always liketo know ahead of time that there is no possible way that the hero will be defeated. It makes it less stressful that way.

I think its better to have a non- superpowered villian like Luthor even though he has been the main villian in 4 out of the last 5 Superman movies.

Even though he's human, Luthor will be able to use kryptonite to subdue him rather than using force.

I know that is always much more visually appealing, at least for me, when I'm watching Action/Adventure type movies.

A no-holds barr between two superpower entities is really overrated anyway. Thats why I prefer movies like Brokeback Mountain over Bruce Lee/Martial Art flicks.

Hopefully the sequel we'll feature Luthor again as the main villian along with his Kryptonite.

For some reason, exploiting Superman's weakness to Kryptonite never seems to get predictable.

Maybe the 2nd sequel can feature Toyman, with of course Luthor as a companion. He can lend his Kryptonite to Toyman to use.

Man, I can't wait.

 

[Kane]

nerds...


You do realize this film is also coming out for an audience (whom alot havent seen the Donner/Lester flicks of the 70s/80s). It was 20-30 years ago.

They have to restart on familiar territory to kick off the franchaise again. Why would it be logical to use a random comicbook Superman rogue when Lex Luthor is Superman's primary nemesis and the most idenitifable villian to Superman....in the media? Even for people who never saw those movies, they know that Lex is Superman's arch enemy, common knowledge.

Both of them are so tied together in pop culture and history, It'd be almost a crime not to use Luthor (and I guarantee if they didnt, fanboys would be complaining too).

 

[Desk]

Man, I can't wait.

LOL! Great post, Raybia.

I have to say I find it rather amusing the way all this is unfolding... for a long time many people on the forum insisted that the film would see Superman confronting some sort of superfoe, with fevered talks about battles with Brainiac or Metallo.

Now we know that isn't the case the forum is full of people desperately trying to rationalise away their disappointment...

"No, it's not a bad thing that there isn't a supervillain in this film. No, actually, it's a good thing! Yeah, it's good, because if we get one in the sequel it'll make it even better! Yeah, that's it. Boy, I can't wait until 2009!"

LOL!

 

[RedIsNotBlue]

nerds...


You do realize this film is also coming out for an audience (whom alot havent seen the Donner/Lester flicks of the 70s/80s). It was 20-30 years ago.

They have to restart on familiar territory to kick off the franchaise again. Why would it be logical to use a random comicbook Superman rogue when Lex Luthor is Superman's primary nemesis and the most idenitifable villian to Superman....in the media? Even for people who never saw those movies, they know that Lex is Superman's arch enemy, common knowledge.

Both of them are so tied together in pop culture and history, It'd be almost a crime not to use Luthor (and I guarantee if they didnt, fanboys would be complaining too).

Well people weren't really expecting this requel idea of Singer's. But I think they could have had Supes bring "something" or "someone" back with him on his trip to Krypton.

 

[Kane]

LOL! Great post, Raybia.

I have to say I find it rather amusing the way all this is unfolding... for a long time many people on the forum insisted that the film would see Superman confronting some sort of superfoe, with fevered talks about battles with Brainiac or Metallo.

Now we know that isn't the case the forum is full of people desperately trying to rationalise away their disappointment...

"No, it's not a bad thing that there isn't a supervillain in this film. No, actually, it's a good thing! Yeah, it's good, because if we get one in the sequel it'll make it even better! Yeah, that's it. Boy, I can't wait until 2009!"

It was never like that. For me personally, I care more about story driven stuff than action.... Its just my personal preference.

Action is good but Ive seen enough movies that are purely action based but fail because of the writing. The writing is number one for me, I wana be able to believe that this character is the last son of Krypton.

Ive never downed a movie before for having not enough action, but Im very critical of the story, dialogue and acting especially.

 

[raybia]

nerds...


You do realize this film is also coming out for an audience (whom alot havent seen the Donner/Lester flicks of the 70s/80s). It was 20-30 years ago.

They have to restart on familiar territory to kick off the franchaise again. Why would it be logical to use a random comicbook Superman rogue when Lex Luthor is Superman's primary nemesis and the most idenitifable villian to Superman....in the media? Even for people who never saw those movies, they know that Lex is Superman's arch enemy, common knowledge.

Both of them are so tied together in pop culture and history, It'd be almost a crime not to use Luthor (and I guarantee if they didnt, fanboys would be complaining too).

Restart? Please.

Singer deserves this criticism when he decided to keep this movie within the continuity of the Donner/Lester movies.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with most of it, and that is why I expected a complete Re-start just like BB along with a re-imagined Luthor without the baggage of the Donner version.

I may be a nerd (I actually like the term Fanboy better) but 2 hours of seeing Superman display superhuman feats is...borrringg!

For a superpower character like Superman, after 50 + years of live movies and T.V. shows, its time for this man to be put through the Gauntlet by matching him up with an formidable opponent both phyisically and mentally.

The villian also known as the Antagonist, is usually the champion of the counter premise. The Villain is often the center of evil in the story. It is from him that the conflict arises.
Unlike the Hero, however, the villain doesn’t have to be a person. It can be a force of nature, or merely something as abstract as life itself. The Villain can be the Hero’s insecurities, it can be an addiction, it can be poverty, or an illness.

The Villain should always have the upper hand until the climax of the story. If the Villain isn’t winning, you lose the conflict.

The Villain is the pull, the driving force behind the conflict. You need the Villain to be powerful. The Villain has to put the hero on the ropes. The Villain can never show weakness in the story until the climax. Otherwise, people will lose interest.

The Villain must be superior to the hero in some way. The Villain was winning up until the end. In TERMINATOR 2, the T-1000 was an unstoppable force right up to the last scene. In Jaws, the shark was relentlessly kicking Roy Schieder’s scrawny butt until he got lucky.

Nobody cares if your hero can beat up a weakling. That isn’t heroic. The Villain has to be superior in a way that matters. If not brawn, then brains. If not brains, then skill. But the Villain must be superior.

If the movie has a Weak Villain then the story will be weak. That is what I'm predicting for this movie unfortunately.

 

[Kane]

The Villain should always have the upper hand until the climax of the story. If the Villain isn’t winning, you lose the conflict.

The Villain is the pull, the driving force behind the conflict. You need the Villain to be powerful. The Villain has to put the hero on the ropes. The Villain can never show weakness in the story until the climax. Otherwise, people will lose interest.

Buddy, you missed the point totally. A villian should have an upper hand....yes, but it need not be physical stength. Luthor's upper hand over Superman is his intellect. Supes and Lex are polar opposites of each other but while Superman has the brawn, Lex has the brains.

The upper hand is reached in the movie, Superman is supposed to die thanks to Lex, or come close to it. Lex has always managed to be one step ahead of the MOS regardless of his physical strength. He has intellect.

Its just like how Batman has 'agility' and brains to fight metahumans with way more raw physical power than him....

And this isnt totally within the continuity of the Donner movies. Again, recent interviews by Singer claim that only the first film is used as the vague history origin (and even within that there are noticable contradictions).

One we've discovered so far is Stephan Bender's young Clark discovers the ship and the FOS crystal at a younger age than Jeff East. That whole Donner history is likely updated....... meaning its a vague/loose sequel to STM, not a direct one.

 

[dpm07]

Restart? Please.

Singer deserves this criticism when he decided to keep this movie within the continuity of the Donner/Lester movies.

I understand what you are saying and I agree with most of it, and that is why I expected a complete Re-start just like BB along with a re-imagined Luthor without the baggage of the Donner version.

I may be a nerd (I actually like the term Fanboy better) but 2 hours of seeing Superman display superhuman feats is...borrringg!

Will a superpower character like Superman, after 50 + years of live movies and T.V. shows, its time to be this man through the Gauntlet by matching him up with an formidable opponent both phyisically and mentally.

The villian also known as the Antagonist, is usually the champion of the counter premise. The Villain is often the center of evil in the story. It is from him that the conflict arises.
Unlike the Hero, however, the villain doesn’t have to be a person. It can be a force of nature, or merely something as abstract as life itself. The Villain can be the Hero’s insecurities, it can be an addiction, it can be poverty, or an illness.

The Villain should always have the upper hand until the climax of the story. If the Villain isn’t winning, you lose the conflict.

The Villain is the pull, the driving force behind the conflict. You need the Villain to be powerful. The Villain has to put the hero on the ropes. The Villain can never show weakness in the story until the climax. Otherwise, people will lose interest.

The Villain must be superior to the hero in some way. The Villain was winning up until the end. In TERMINATOR 2, the T-1000 was an unstoppable force right up to the last scene. In Jaws, the shark was relentlessly kicking Roy Schieder’s scrawny butt until he got lucky.

Nobody cares if your hero can beat up a weakling. That isn’t heroic. The Villain has to be superior in a way that matters. If not brawn, then brains. If not brains, then skill. But the Villain must be superior.

If the movie has a Weak Villain then the story will be weak. That is what I'm predicting for this movie unfortunately.

That was a great post, and very well presented. You really provided a sound assessment.

I agree with everything you said.

 

[raybia]

Buddy, you missed the point totally. A villian should have an upper hand....yes, but it need not be physical stength. Luthor's upper hand over Superman is his intellect. Supes and Lex are polar opposites of each other but while Superman has the brawn, Lex has the brains.


The upper hand is reached in the movie, Superman is supposed to die thanks to Lex, or come close to it. Lex has always managed to be one step ahead of the MOS regardless of his physical strength. He has intellect.

Yes I agree but what you are describing is exactly Superman: The Movie, a film made in 1978.

Its time to raise the bar. There is no reason why Singer couldn't have given Luthor some muscle in the form of Braniac or some other Superpower character.

In fact based on the character from DC, this much in tune with Luthor's nature; to use and manipulate characters physically more powerful than himself to use against Superman and for his own agenda.

Of course I don't want a two hour fist fight of mindless action. I'm like you as I also want a great story but this could be enhanced by having a great antagonist which would result in a great protangonist as well.

(For a movie that does this REALLY WELL, see Gladiator. A sci-fi movie that does this well is Empire Strikes Back, A comic book movie that does this very well is the Matrix. Yes technically its not but for all pratical purposes it is.)

At the very least, there could have been some foreshadowing by having "something" come back from Krypton along with Superman. Donner did this perfectly in the first filim with Zod.

 

[bubbadoom]

Since this is a relaunch, I guess it's okay that we only get Luthor, but BATMAN BEGINS did go with a different villain than Joker, so someone new would have been fine by me. I just hope we get some SUPER villains in the sequels, and not Luthor over and over and over...

 

[NotFadeAway]

I disagree with this post!!!!!!

 

[The Caped Knight]

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 agree with your opinion. Not to mention Lex Luthor is SUPERMAN's number One arch nemesis . so it's only logical for SUPERMAN to face off against his number one enemy Lex Luthor.

 

[WormyT]

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 disagree.

After 4 superman movies we've already had Luthor 3 times already!
I think Batman Begins is a bad comparrison as it in itself proves one can make a movie with a killer origin story and manage to squeeze in a pack of villains PLUS set up a future villain with ease. Also Batman Begins plot is a perfect merging of some of the finest Batman comic stories.
Superman on the other hand drops yet another log of poo onto it's source material. Why don't they respect Superman?
After 20 year absence and the horrible taste of Nucleur Man and Richard Pryar in our heads, and with countless great superman comic book stories the screenwriters have to choose from we get a movie thats a tribute to the cheesy seventies version and without a single hard hitter in the entire feature.
Forget about Superman throwing a SINGLE punch in this whole movie. Instead, he'll get stabbed with a piece of rock held by a human he could easily crush. Nevermind the fact that the military would bomb the hell out of anyone like Luthor who tried to destroy the world. Thats where heavy hitters like Metallo, Parasite, Darkseid could have come in (as the Muscle Luthor needs). But they decided to add the god awful torture chamber kid plot instead of actually giving us a REAL superman movie that (like Batman Begins) shows the non-fans what it is us fans really read and love about this character.

Munchkin or Supervillain?...........................let me think....................................I mean have you SEEN the little guy.......hes sooo cute...........hes hasn't existed in the history of superman lore but the little guy is adorable I gotta say.
Well theres only 72 years worth of supermans stories and characters. But I guess they had to make MORE stuff up like they did in the 70's 80's movies.

 

[NotFadeAway]

I disagree.

After 4 superman movies with we've already had Luthor 3 times already!
I think Batman Begins is a bad comparrison as it in itself proves one can make a movie with a killer origin story and manage to squeeze in a pack of villains PLUS set up a future villain with ease. Also Batman Begins plot is a perfect merging of some of the finest Batman comic stories.
Superman on the other hand drops yet another log of poo onto it's source material. Why don't they respect Superman?
After 20 year absence and the horrible taste of Nucleur Man and Richard Pryar in our heads, and with countless great superman comic book stories the screenwriters have to choose from we get a movie thats a tribute to the cheesy seventies version and without a single hard hitter in the entire feature. Forget about Superman throwing a SINGLE punch in this whole movie. Instead, he'll get stabbed with a piece of rock held by a human he could easily crush. Nevermind the fact that the military would bomb the hell out of anyone who tried to destroy the world. Thats where heavy hitters like Metallo, Parasite, Darkseid come in, or could have come in had they decided to lose the godawful torture chamber kid plot and actually gave us a REAL superman movie that (like Batman Begins) shows the non-fans what it is us fans really read and love about this character.

Munchkin or Supervillain?...........................let me think....................................I mean have you SEEN the little guy.......hes sooo cute...........hes hasn't existed in the history of superman lore but the little guy is adorable I gotta say.

YEA Thats what Im talking about baby.........Come back at that ANYONE I dare you!!! TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO DISREGARD THAT!!!

I know its hard to get past your blind love of Singer, but BRING IT!!!!

 

[raybia]

I disagree.

After 4 superman movies we've already had Luthor 3 times already!
I think Batman Begins is a bad comparrison as it in itself proves one can make a movie with a killer origin story and manage to squeeze in a pack of villains PLUS set up a future villain with ease. Also Batman Begins plot is a perfect merging of some of the finest Batman comic stories.
Superman on the other hand drops yet another log of poo onto it's source material. Why don't they respect Superman?
After 20 year absence and the horrible taste of Nucleur Man and Richard Pryar in our heads, and with countless great superman comic book stories the screenwriters have to choose from we get a movie thats a tribute to the cheesy seventies version and without a single hard hitter in the entire feature.
Forget about Superman throwing a SINGLE punch in this whole movie. Instead, he'll get stabbed with a piece of rock held by a human he could easily crush. Nevermind the fact that the military would bomb the hell out of anyone like Luthor who tried to destroy the world. Thats where heavy hitters like Metallo, Parasite, Darkseid could have come in (as the Muscle Luthor needs). But they decided to add the god awful torture chamber kid plot instead of actually giving us a REAL superman movie that (like Batman Begins) shows the non-fans what it is us fans really read and love about this character.

Munchkin or Supervillain?...........................let me think....................................I mean have you SEEN the little guy.......hes sooo cute...........hes hasn't existed in the history of superman lore but the little guy is adorable I gotta say.
Well theres only 72 years worth of supermans stories and characters. But I guess they had to make MORE stuff up like they did in the 70's 80's movies.

BEST POST EVER!

 

[Octoberist]

I understand how people are upset that they're no Super-Powered villains. But I'm over it only because if I get discourage over Superman now, then I won't a comic book movie to look foward to this year. I'm almost done with X3, with its various rumors

 

[Lightning54SC]

im with everyone who agrees about what Raybia said perfect choice of words couldnt have said it better.... if the film does well i think we will see a SUPERVILLAIN in the sequal

 

[raybia]

I understand how people are upset that they're no Super-Powered villains. But I'm over it only because if I get discourage over Superman now, then I won't a comic book movie to look foward to this year. I'm almost done with X3, with its various rumors

I know exactly what you mean but at the same time we shouldn't condemn this film because it has no Supervillian and its not a live action TAS.

It is what it is: AN UNOFFICIAL SEQUEL TO SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE.

There is actually nothing wrong with that for it will make for a great trilogy that Donner's movie deserves.

Hopefully this movie will be a success and WB will be willing to distance the future sequels from the Original and begin to introduce elements of all the great Superman comic book stories from the past 10 to 20 years. (If not I will really be saddened.)

 

[Lightning54SC]

I know exactly what you mean but at the same time we shouldn't condemn this film because it has no Supervillian and its not a live action TAS.

It is what it is: AN UNOFFICIAL SEQUEL TO SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE.

There is actually nothing wrong with that it will make for a great trilogy that Donner's movie deserved.

Hopefully this movie will be a success and WB will be willing to distance the future sequels from the Original and begin to introduce elements of all the great Superman comic books from the past 10 to 20 years. (If not I will really be saddened.)

if they dont im dropping superman liek a bad habit and moving on the batman once and for all

 

[Milkman95]

Having Luthor back was the safest way to bring the character back. Same with the setting of the story and the film.

You'll have your corny and ridiculous supervillains in the sequel - this film's goal is to RE-ESTABLISH the character and make him relatable again. Why can't people understand this?

 

[Hunter Rider]

Having Luthor back was the safest way to bring the character back. Same with the setting of the story and the film.

You'll have your corny and ridiculous supervillains in the sequel - this film's goal is to RE-ESTABLISH the character and make him relatable again. Why can't people understand this?

I thought the whole world knew Superman ? what was to stop Lex having a bodyguard like Metallo instead of two comedy goof sidekicks > now they are ridiculous and i guess your gonna hate the sequels

 

[raybia]

You'll have your corny and ridiculous supervillains in the sequel - this film's goal is to RE-ESTABLISH the character and make him relatable again. Why can't people understand this?

Are you serious?

A villian who happens to be Superpowered will be no more corny and ridiculous than Superman himself. AND NO MORE CORNY THAN THE YAHOOS THAT LUTHOR IS SURROUNDING HIMSELF WITH IN THIS MOVIE.

And if it that supervillian does come across this way then you can thank the Director and the writer for that.

What a riduculous post.

Surprising coming from you.