BvS The BvS Rumor/Speculation Discussion Thread! - Part 3

[shauner111]

The average joe also knows who Bizarro is.

No they don't. A general moviegoer knows Lex Luthor, and at this point, maybe General Zod. That's it.

 

[Guts]

Does the average movie goer know who Gus Gorman is?

 

[dnno1]

Ottis Berg

For that matter, does the average movie goer know who Ottis is?

 

[british?]

the "average movie goer" will only know batman-superman-lois lane-alfred-wonder woman & lex luthor & maybe like 65% know who zod is its very unlikely that they will know metallo or bizzaro or even omac's are.....

 

[dhandler01]

Isnt the point of the movie to introduce those characters? Who cares who the audience knows they can be made to like anyone...

 

[british?]

Isnt the point of the movie to introduce those characters? Who cares who the audience knows they can be made to like anyone...

i agree because if you look at ironman ten years ago not many people knew of the character but now he is the biggest marvel character joint with spiderman but i hope that happens with wonderwoman yes she's kind of well known but i hope she explodes the way ironman did (but with better films obv)

 

[Kal-el_from_Rio]

Anyway, my money is on Doomsday or Bizarro.

 

[InJustice]

I'm not saying that the cinematic version of Doomsday will kill Superman early in this universe. Maybe he won't kill him at all. Maybe this Doomsday version is created from Zod's body. Maybe this Doomsday my friend told me is in fact a Bizarro?

People recognize Doomsday (or Apocalipse, here in Brazil) as the villain that brought Superman down for real. He is very recognizable. I understand that OMAC, Bizarro, Parasite, Metallo could all fit the bill as the physical villain of the movie, but I think Doomsday has a better ring to it.

And once he is revealed it would create a strong pre-climax for the final showdown. People will be confused: "Warner Bros is going to kill Superman?" "Noooo, that's not possible..." They could do as far to leave the impression Superman was killed and set a cliffhanger for JLA Part 1 (heroes must band together once and for all... Superman got (almost) killed...).

If Doomsday isn't going to kill Superman, then what is even the point of using it then? You're better off going with a different villain and having a new way to have conflict in the story. The Death of Superman deserves a cinematic representation one day, so Doomsday should be saved for when that time comes.

While I understand recognizability being a huge thing, let's not forget that Marvel has made their characters stand out even when audiences had no clue who they were. DC can do the same with their villains as long as they're well-written and present a challenge to Superman. Recognizability should not come at the cost of storytelling.

 

[roach]

If Doomsday isn't going to kill Superman, then what is even the point of using it then? You're better off going with a different villain and having a new way to have conflict in the story. The Death of Superman deserves a cinematic representation one day, so Doomsday should be saved for when that time comes.

While I understand recognizability being a huge thing, let's not forget that Marvel has made their characters stand out even when audiences had no clue who they were. DC can do the same with their villains as long as they're well-written and present a challenge to Superman. Recognizability should not come at the cost of storytelling.

Got to agree with this...Marvel has made their characters house hold names and you'd be hard pressed to name one that was popular or known to the GA before Marvel Studios was a thing...maybe Captain America

 

[KnowhereMan]

Got to agree with this...Marvel has made their characters house hold names and you'd be hard pressed to name one that was popular or known to the GA before Marvel Studios was a thing...maybe Captain America

And the Incredible Hulk.

 

[Mainline]

If Doomsday isn't going to kill Superman, then what is even the point of using it then?

It was used extremely smartly in the epic DCAU without having to kill Superman.

http://dcau.wikia.com/wiki/Doomsday

Doomsday served as a foil to illustrate the Justice Lords. Then Doomsday served to push the League to the limit both during the fight and afterwards in determining what's just and moral... when is it OK for the League to banish enemies to the Phantom Zone and play judge, jury, and jailer?

Finally, Doomsday served to show humanity's distrust of the League and the lengths they'd go to have protocols against them.

He's an incredibly versatile plot device if you open your mind a little.

 

[Bathead]

By the by, I just saw a YT vid of someone checking out BvS action figures at a recent con somewhere, and one of them was of Batman is his desert outfit with goggles and long coat and all, and he said it was labelled the "Knightmare" Batman.
Leads me to think maybe the theory about that sequence where he snaps the guy's neck is a dream may be true.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

We've known that since NYCC. They had the same display.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

By the by, I just saw a YT vid of someone checking out BvS action figures at a recent con somewhere, and one of them was of Batman is his desert outfit with goggles and long coat and all, and he said it was labelled the "Knightmare" Batman.
Leads me to think maybe the theory about that sequence where he snaps the guy's neck is a dream may be true.

It is a dream.

 

[KillerWolf]

It is a dream.

It is all a dream. We are living in David Lynch's film.



I do agree that it's most likely a dream though.

 

[BatmanVSuperman]

Doomsday would be the easy way to go and even if far too obvious it could still work. OMAC would be pretty sick though

 

[InJustice]

It was used extremely smartly in the epic DCAU without having to kill Superman.

http://dcau.wikia.com/wiki/Doomsday

Doomsday served as a foil to illustrate the Justice Lords. Then Doomsday served to push the League to the limit both during the fight and afterwards in determining what's just and moral... when is it OK for the League to banish enemies to the Phantom Zone and play judge, jury, and jailer?

Finally, Doomsday served to show humanity's distrust of the League and the lengths they'd go to have protocols against them.

He's an incredibly versatile plot device if you open your mind a little.

He's an effective plot device, no question about it, but the problem is how you use it. He was effective in the JL episode because it plays a part in the juxtaposition of both the Justice League and Justice Lords, and their methodologies. In fact, the way it is used speaks more effectively to the other characters than itself. As a standalone plot device, Doomsday is very underwhelming and leaves nothing to the imagination.

It's much harder to get that same element in the movie unless you devote a lot of resources towards reaching that same juxtaposition, or reaching different story heights. That's why I would just go with a different villain, it's much easier to accomplish an interesting conflict with a different villain.

 

[dhandler01]

It was used extremely smartly in the epic DCAU without having to kill Superman.

http://dcau.wikia.com/wiki/Doomsday

Doomsday served as a foil to illustrate the Justice Lords. Then Doomsday served to push the League to the limit both during the fight and afterwards in determining what's just and moral... when is it OK for the League to banish enemies to the Phantom Zone and play judge, jury, and jailer?

Finally, Doomsday served to show humanity's distrust of the League and the lengths they'd go to have protocols against them.

He's an incredibly versatile plot device if you open your mind a little.

I hated that storyline...one of my least favorite of the DCAU stories and a complete waste of Doomsday imho.

 

[Mainline]

As a standalone plot device, Doomsday is very underwhelming and leaves nothing to the imagination.

Good thing he wasn't in JLU and can't be standalone in BvS.

You're moving the goalposts from, "He's only interested if Superman dies", now to "He can't be interesting on his own." However, that criticism isn't relevant in context.

BvS is repeatedly fending off accusations for being overstuffed. Whatever the third-act threat is, the one thing we can certain it will be is not "standalone". It must be layered with the conflict between the World's Finest, Lex Luthor's machinations, and the tensions around the world, with the cities, and with the government... not to mention Wonder Woman and any other plots to be woven into the third act.

Literally in-story and symbolically, Doomsday was overwhelming in JLU. Someone who could push Superman towards lethal force or maiming (lobotomizing) and so dangerous the League is pushed towards moral compromise. His later appearance as an example of Hamilton's betrayal filled the imagination with what CADMUS must have planned and schemed behind the scenes to get there.

The opposite of "underwhelming" and "nothing to the imagination" unless you close your mind off and apply circular truisms, "Doomsday is boring because he's boring."

 

[Mainline]

I hated that storyline...one of my least favorite of the DCAU stories and a complete waste of Doomsday imho.

Taste is subjective, but those are two of JLU's highest rated episodes. Doomsday accomplished a lot for both episodes. Seems to me that "complete waste" tends to translate to "nothing short of the complete Death of Superman" a lot of the time for this critique.

 

[dhandler01]

Yes that is exactly what it means. You didnt need Doomsday for those episodes to work you could have used any villain.

 

[InJustice]

Good thing he wasn't in JLU and can't be standalone in BvS.

You're moving the goalposts from, "He's only interested if Superman dies", now to "He can't be interesting on his own." However, that criticism isn't relevant in context.

BvS is repeatedly fending off accusations for being overstuffed. Whatever the third-act threat is, the one thing we can certain it will be is not "standalone". It must be layered with the conflict between the World's Finest, Lex Luthor's machinations, and the tensions around the world, with the cities, and with the government... not to mention Wonder Woman and any other plots to be woven into the third act.

Literally in-story and symbolically, Doomsday was overwhelming in JLU. Someone who could push Superman towards lethal force or maiming (lobotomizing) and so dangerous the League is pushed towards moral compromise. His later appearance as an example of Hamilton's betrayal filled the imagination with what CADMUS must have planned and schemed behind the scenes to get there.

The opposite of "underwhelming" and "nothing to the imagination" unless you close your mind off and apply circular truisms, "Doomsday is boring because he's boring."

I never actually said Doomsday is only interesting if he kills Superman, in fact I haven't made any claims of Doomsday being interesting at all. The difference is that I said that one of its feature is being the character that kills Superman. Again, I never stated that it is interesting, (frankly I have some problems with the original use of Doomsday) it was more about iconography and seeing something translated from the comics to the silver screen. Furthermore, I said that if you're going to use that particular plot point in this film for the sake of recognizability, it's a waste of time and doesn't fit into the goal of creating a DCCU and ultimately, the Justice League. If you're going to accuse me of shifting goalposts, at least get my argument correctly represented instead of creating a strawman.

On top of the very poor strawman you’ve used, you then proceed to twist my words. When I said standalone, I meant in a situation like the Death of Superman storyline. And when I said leaves nothing to the imagination, I was speaking about how Doomsday in that particular story is basically a wrecking ball against Superman. There’s no latent content that makes Doomsday compelling whatsoever. His only existence was to kill Superman in the comics, and that remains the same in the JL scenario. Even when you put Doomsday in the JL scenario, it doesn’t tell us anything new about Doomsday itself, or what makes it compelling. What it does tell us, is the extent that Project CADMUS would go to discredit metahumans in order to further its agenda that people cannot trust them. The only problem? You could replace Doomsday with just about any threatening villain or situation where the heroes are pushed to the boundaries, and nothing would change about the story or the message within the conflict itself. Doomsday is not central or even a significant figure to that particular conflict, Project CADMUS, the Justice Lords (to some extent), and the Justice League are all central figures.

 

[GreenKToo]

Ottis Berg

For that matter, does the average movie goer know who Ottis is?

i'm a itty bitty man in a big big world..

 

[phantomknight09]

It was used extremely smartly in the epic DCAU without having to kill Superman.

http://dcau.wikia.com/wiki/Doomsday

Doomsday served as a foil to illustrate the Justice Lords. Then Doomsday served to push the League to the limit both during the fight and afterwards in determining what's just and moral... when is it OK for the League to banish enemies to the Phantom Zone and play judge, jury, and jailer?

Finally, Doomsday served to show humanity's distrust of the League and the lengths they'd go to have protocols against them.

He's an incredibly versatile plot device if you open your mind a little.

dam that was a blast from the past. lol thanks. Your comment reminded me of the amazing cadmus arc with doomsday and Batman "taking a bullet" for superman and questioning the power superman holds by being able to banishing beings to the phantom zone.

 

[Mainline]

If you're going to accuse me of shifting goalposts, at least get my argument correctly represented

So... your response to shifting the goalposts is to shift the goalposts from Doomsday's validity as a villain to whether the characterization of you shifting the goalposts was shifted correctly?

Talk about strawmen!

This is a BvS discussion board. The topic is the relevance of Doomsday to BvS. If your accusation is that I mistook your statement as actually being relevant to the topic and the board, well, sorry! Gee, I wonder why a multi-layered story with a lot of other things going on like JLU might be a more relevant and applicable example and use of Doomsday than citing an event that will never be replicated in live action film.

As for the specificity of using Doomsday. It's fiction and adaptation. Necessity is a pointless strawman argument. You can literally create new characters out of whole cloth or even make your own parallel renditions like Watchmen's take on Charleston.

It's a hollow and intellectually bankrupt argument.

Yes that is exactly what it means. You didnt need Doomsday for those episodes to work you could have used any villain.

Ditto above.

Not to burst your bubble but comic accurate Death of Superman is never going to be translated to live action. The rights will lapse into the public domain long before anyone cares to try and even then all the ancillary characters won't be in the public domain yet. It's never going to happen. Pretending there's no other utility for Doomsday is patently untrue, simply by seeing how he's been used elsewhere.