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

[Loden Greatstorm]

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

Agreed. Either way we win.

 

[Vaibow]

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



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

What if, at the end of the movie, it cuts to a darkened bedroom, the digital clock strikes 4am, suddenly Brandon Routh, opening his eyes in disgust to a little 6 year old, coughing in the room next door.

Lois, looking like she needs a good meal, is sleep, on the sofa, with cucumbers on her eyes.

 

[dhandler01]

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.

Not to burst your bubble but I dont want a Death of Superman story. I dont want Doomsday in any capacity because even when they completely change him to be something else (like in the DCAU or when he became super smart in the books) he is still a lame one note villain that only serves a purpose as the creature who killed Superman. (those episodes were popular because the fans knew who Doomsday was even if he served a different purpose) Without that, he is just another big brute that destroys stuff.

If he never showed up in live action I wouldnt complain for a second. He was good for his one moment and can fade away. Whats next bringing back Azrael Batman?

 

[matt47]

Not to burst your bubble but I dont want a Death of Superman story. I dont want Doomsday in any capacity because even when they completely change him to be something else (like in the DCAU or when he became super smart in the books) he is still a lame one note villain that only serves a purpose as the creature who killed Superman. (those episodes were popular because the fans knew who Doomsday was even if he served a different purpose) Without that, he is just another big brute that destroys stuff.

If he never showed up in live action I wouldnt complain for a second. He was good for his one moment and can fade away. Whats next bringing back Azrael Batman?

Which is exactly why I would be good with him being the villain in BvS. Lex is the brains, the villain he care about, he creates doomsday.

 

[Mainline]

I dont want Doomsday in any capacity

All you needed to do was have the intellectual honesty to say that in the first place outright. "I don't like Doomsday."

Not hide behind utterly inapplicable excuses which are pointless to raise and readily changeable in adaptation.

"I hate him in that one story and I hate him even changed in those other stories."

I mean, the unifying fact there is your hate, not Doomsday's character. Plainly. Given that it changed and hinges on nothing but writer fiat.

It's like we're discussing what car to be gifted and objecting, "I hate Ferraris because it beat me in race that one time... and I hate yellow cars." "OK, but you know that race has no bearing on what it's like for you to be gifted a Ferrari... and you can pick a different color." "That race was stupid, even if it beat me, and I hate yellow!" "Okay, calm down. You're the king of deciding that Ferrari must be yellow. There's no such thing as paint in our world. Relax." "Ferrari yellow!"

That's basically what I'm hearing when you call a fictional character "one note" like its a truism, over and over, like it makes a difference to repeat it. Any fictional character is or could be "one note" until they aren't. If Mr. Freeze was dismissed as "one note" we wouldn't have "Heart of Ice." If you don't allow for the possibility, that's just close-minded failure of imagination and denial of reality.

Does that mean you have to like Doomsday or believe that all characters have unlimited potential? Of course not. However, be honest and own your disdain as your own bias and not some intrinsic defect to a fictional character who can be reinterpreted at will.

 

[KillerWolf]

What if, at the end of the movie, it cuts to a darkened bedroom, the digital clock strikes 4am, suddenly Brandon Routh, opening his eyes in disgust to a little 6 year old, coughing in the room next door.

Lois, looking like she needs a good meal, is sleep, on the sofa, with cucumbers on her eyes.

And he says "**** it, I'll rather return to getting my ass beaten by psychotic man in a bat costume" and goes back to sleep.

 

[InJustice]

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!

Have you ever taken an argument/logic class? Normally if someone comes up with a claim that a particular argument/work has x/y/z fallacy, the onus is on the original person to counter the claim being made. But apparently, you seem to think everything (including counterarguing a claim) is goalpost shifting, when in actuality, it's to correct your error. Additionally, another thing is you never misrepresent another person's argument. That's a quick way to demonstrate that you lack critical reading skills. You love to make erroneous straw men while renouncing other people for making straw men. That's called hypocrisy in case you didn't know.

Anyways.

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.

Necessity isn't a pointless strawman argument just because you say it is. The idea that Doomsday is significant to the larger conflict, themes and ideas fall apart when you realize that Doomsday is irrelevant to the larger ideas in the first place. Which then begs the question of why Doomsday is even necessary to the story being told. Villains are significant to building and developing protagonist(s), so if they don't serve a particular purpose, or that their purpose can be served by someone/thing else, that's inefficient.

Ironic that you mention it's a hollow and intellectually bankrupt argument, because frankly, your justification for why necessity is wrong is hollow and intellectually bankrupt.

 

[Mainline]

the onus is on the original person to counter the claim being made

Actually that's the fallacy fallacy. You're pretty terrible at this. You've gone from critiquing Doomsday's relevance in an irrelevant work, to shifting the goalposts to the failing to acknowledge you were citing an irrelevant work, to now critiquing the critique.

I mean, you literally come off as someone who took a class, with the same kind of juvenile misapplication of logical precepts as a smokescreen rather than discussing the actual topic. An adapted Doomsday in BvS.

In the real world, people discuss the topic.

Necessity isn't a pointless strawman argument just because you say it is.

This is literally a "neener neener nuh uh!" level argument. Your necessity argument is a strawman because in fiction necessity is manufactured. Literally nothing in fiction exists without willful inclusion. Hinging your entire argument on some alleged intrinsic characteristic of a fiction character within a fictional story which can be adapted and shaped to meet any need, goal, or necessity is absurd.

The idea that Doomsday is significant to the larger conflict, themes and ideas fall apart when you realize that Doomsday is irrelevant to the larger ideas in the first place.

This is literally an unsupported precept. Where is this "realization" going to arise from? What's stopping the filmmaker from making Doomsday relevant to the larger ideas? Oh, that's right... nothing.

Which then begs the question...

HAH! lol ... I never lol, but that cliche... hahaha...

I'm pretty much done with your attempt at faux argument.

Tell me again how a storyteller is powerless in the face of Doomsday's defects. If somehow this characteristic is unique to Doomsday, perhaps he's even more powerful and significant than you give him credit for, able to reach out and rule over the keystroke!

 

[Greenians]

stop posting so many words FFs. Make your point and move on.

 

[Charlatan]

It all depends on what the writers want to happen in this film. If Doomsday is in it then I will assume that Supes might be out of action at the end of it. No he won't be "dead" not in any permanent way. But he will make a huge sacrifice to stop Doomsday. Leaving Bats and WW to try to replace/rescue him by going into recruitment mode.

 

[InJustice]

Actually that's the fallacy fallacy. You're pretty terrible at this. You've gone from critiquing Doomsday's relevance in an irrelevant work, to shifting the goalposts to the failing to acknowledge you were citing an irrelevant work, to now critiquing the critique.

I mean, you literally come off as someone who took a class, with the same kind of juvenile misapplication of logical precepts as a smokescreen rather than discussing the actual topic. An adapted Doomsday in BvS.

In the real world, people discuss the topic.

You're terrible at argumentation. All you do is start a discussion and then when someone responds with a counterclaim to a fallacy that you discussed in the first place, you respond akin to an overzealous person screaming out "HAH! I GOT YOU THERE!" You're more concerned with keeping score than discussing the topic.

Frankly, in the real world, people discuss the topic at hand and counter criticisms/"fallacies" presented by the opposing side. Like I said before, that's not shifting the goalposts. But it might be too much for you to grasp since you care more about keeping score than you do about actually discussing the topic at hand.

This is literally a "neener neener nuh uh!" level argument. Your necessity argument is a strawman because in fiction necessity is manufactured. Literally nothing in fiction exists without willful inclusion. Hinging your entire argument on some alleged intrinsic characteristic of a fiction character within a fictional story which can be adapted and shaped to meet any need, goal, or necessity is absurd.

You're being superfluously broad. If we're talking fiction in general devoid of any pre-existing lore and history, sure that point applies. But when it comes to dealing with comic book lore, where characters/plot devices have established foundations, it's not as easy as willfully including them into any story. Certain pieces work, and others do not.

This is literally an unsupported precept. Where is this "realization" going to arise from? What's stopping the filmmaker from making Doomsday relevant to the larger ideas? Oh, that's right... nothing.

Realization comes when you deconstruct the story and its elements in the JLU episode to see how each aspect works. I've already mentioned it, so there's no need to repeat. Your idea is just as unsupported, given that Zack Snyder loves to add certain elements from comic books, what's stopping him from going traditional and keeping Doomsday as is? Oh...nothing.

I'm pretty much done with your attempt at faux argument.

Says the person who assumes counterclaims = shifting goalposts.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Jesus Christ this thread, and what it's become...

 

[KillerWolf]

I don't bother reading anymore, I just post one of my silly, nonsensical posts here and there.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Guys, let's steer back on topic.

 

[rogbngp]

I'm starting to think that the trailer scenes and stills of Superman looking all angry and twisted up could very well be an evil clone of Superman created by Lex. This includes the Superman that is kneeling before Luthor, and the one apparently shooting his heat vision at Batman. There's a still photo of Superman squaring off against Batman in the rain with an "S" curl on his bangs--that one too. Also the one of Superman standing in what appears to be the ruins of Wayne Manor.

I think the scene of Superman striding past the "S" soldiers is however a nightmare that Batman has (as is the scene of Batman fighting the soldiers in the dersert). The dream is based on worries Batman develops due to the misdeeds that evil clone Superman has performed at Lex's bidding, in order to turn the world (and Batman) against Superman.

When Batman fights Superman in the climactic showdown it will be actual Superman trying to convince Batman that he is not the one that has been behaving badly. So the scene of Superman ripping the doors off the Batmobile, and Batman crashing Supes through the skylight, are from that fight.

If this plot turns out to be true, I would still also love to see a Bizarro from a clone created from Zod's corpse played by Michael Shannon. This would be more of a monstrous creation with pale skin, who speaks in two word sentences, etc. (Not at all comical, though, as in the Silver Age comics.) But I think that's a total long-shot. Because then we'd have two Bizarros, which WB would probably feel is overkill.

The main reason I like the Bizarro theory is because of the brilliant Easter egg inserted into MoS!

A major question for this plot-line becomes how does Lex get a hold of Superman's DNA, though. A sample of his blood was taken when he was captive aboard the Black Zero. But that presumably got whisked into the singularity along with the Black Zero. Unless Zod had it with him and left it in Superman's scout ship that he used at the end of the film. My guess is that Superman will retrieve that scout ship (which should be able to heal itself using Krytponian bio-tech, per the Man of Steel Prequel comic) and make it his Fortress of Solitude, though. I dunno. Maybe the blood sample gets separated from the ship and found by the military. And then Lex gets his hands on it as their subcontracted chief weapons tech developer.

 

[kguillou]

It all depends on what the writers want to happen in this film. If Doomsday is in it then I will assume that Supes might be out of action at the end of it. No he won't be "dead" not in any permanent way. But he will make a huge sacrifice to stop Doomsday. Leaving Bats and WW to try to replace/rescue him by going into recruitment mode.

This is my BIG fear for the film. I do NOT want an ending where Supes is "out of action." That'd be such a downer note to end the movie on, especially a movie thats about unifying the big three DC characters for the first time on film. I want the movie to end on a "F*** YEAH!" moment with the three standing unified together but I have this weird feeling Snyders gonna throw a curveball and take Supes out of the equation somehow and Im not sure how I'd feel about that.

 

[Urich Leeds]

I'm starting to think that the trailer scenes and stills of Superman looking all angry and twisted up could very well be an evil clone of Superman created by Lex. This includes the Superman that is kneeling before Luthor, and the one apparently shooting his heat vision at Batman. There's a still photo of Superman squaring off against Batman in the rain with an "S" curl on his bangs--that one too. Also the one of Superman standing in what appears to be the ruins of Wayne Manor.

I think the scene of Superman striding past the "S" soldiers is however a nightmare that Batman has (as is the scene of Batman fighting the soldiers in the dersert). The dream is based on worries Batman develops due to the misdeeds that evil clone Superman has performed at Lex's bidding, in order to turn the world (and Batman) against Superman.

When Batman fights Superman in the climactic showdown it will be actual Superman trying to convince Batman that he is not the one that has been behaving badly. So the scene of Superman ripping the doors off the Batmobile, and Batman crashing Supes through the skylight, are from that fight.

If this plot turns out to be true, I would still also love to see a Bizarro from a clone created from Zod's corpse played by Michael Shannon. This would be more of a monstrous creation with pale skin, who speaks in two word sentences, etc. (Not at all comical, though, as in the Silver Age comics.) But I think that's a total long-shot. Because then we'd have two Bizarros, which WB would probably feel is overkill.

The main reason I like the Bizarro theory is because of the brilliant Easter egg inserted into MoS!

A major question for this plot-line becomes how does Lex get a hold of Superman's DNA, though. A sample of his blood was taken when he was captive aboard the Black Zero. But that presumably got whisked into the singularity along with the Black Zero. Unless Zod had it with him and left it in Superman's scout ship that he used at the end of the film. My guess is that Superman will retrieve that scout ship (which should be able to heal itself using Krytponian bio-tech, per the Man of Steel Prequel comic) and make it his Fortress of Solitude, though. I dunno. Maybe the blood sample gets separated from the ship and found by the military. And then Lex gets his hands on it as their subcontracted chief weapons tech developer.

I think the scene of Superman bowing down to Lex is him surrending his DNA to Lex, whom needs it to complete Bizarro (since he couldn't do so with Zod's).

 

[rogbngp]

I think the scene of Superman bowing down to Lex is him surrending his DNA to Lex, whom needs it to complete Bizarro (since he couldn't do so with Zod's).

Could be. But under what circumstances would Superman allow that? I know there was a rumor this summer generated by Umberto Gonzalez that Lex would kidnap Martha Kent. But I'll be a bit disappointed if Superman agrees to surrender his DNA to Lex for any reason, including that one. I guess it ultimately depends on how well it is developed and executed, though.

 

[FeedOnATreeFrog]

This is my BIG fear for the film. I do NOT want an ending where Supes is "out of action." That'd be such a downer note to end the movie on, especially a movie thats about unifying the big three DC characters for the first time on film. I want the movie to end on a "F*** YEAH!" moment with the three standing unified together but I have this weird feeling Snyders gonna throw a curveball and take Supes out of the equation somehow and Im not sure how I'd feel about that.

I think it could be awesome if done right. Not necessarily a downer.

 

[souperman]

I don't bother reading anymore, I just post one of my silly, nonsensical posts here and there.

Here !, here !...( where,-where?)

The perfect retort and thread attitude.

On that note... Eggs.

Fat end or pointy end.?

please discuss...

 

[Rowsdower!]

I definitely don't want Superman to be dead at the end. Granted, we know he'll come back but it would still be a sh**ty way to end the movie and would likely minimize his role in JL.

 

[rogbngp]

My wish is that Snyder won't kill off Superman at the end of BvS, or at any time, and that we will see MoS 2 squeezed into the DCEU line-up somehow, hopefully before 2020 (if it has to be 2021 then so be it). I don't particularly wish to see the Death of Superman story told.

 

[kguillou]

Exactly, Rowsdower! We all know he would be back but that'd be such a crappy way to end a movie thats being heavily marketed as the first meeting of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman in film. I mean, I don't doubt that having Superman sacrifice himself in the film's climax could be very powerful and well done if done the right way but ending the movie without Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman unified and starting the Justice League together would just feel incredibly disappointing.

 

[souperman]

My wish is that Snyder won't kill off Superman at the end of BvS, or at any time, and that we will see MoS 2 squeezed into the DCEU line-up somehow, hopefully before 2020 (if it has to be 2021 then so be it). I don't particularly wish to see the Death of Superman story told.

Exactly, Rowsdower! We all know he would be back but that'd be such a crappy way to end a movie thats being heavily marketed as the first meeting of Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman in film. I mean, I don't doubt that having Superman sacrifice himself in the film's climax could be very powerful and well done if done the right way but ending the movie without Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman unified and starting the Justice League together would just feel incredibly disappointing.

...Why not? It would be an incredibly touching and poignant way to go.

Remember that MOS was ripe with the Christ story.

My guess, Superman sacrifices himself for humanity at the end of BvS in some way that makes a believer out of BatJudas... At the very end of the film, three days later - we see Superman's finger twitch...or eye open or something along those lines.

Sure... not entirely original but it would work... and Supes would not be out of JL for very long...after the opening act... SUPERMAN REBORN.

it could happen...

 

[rogbngp]

...Why not? It would be an incredibly touching and poignant way to go.

Remember that MOS was ripe with the Christ story.

My guess, Superman sacrifices himself for humanity at the end of BvS in some way that makes a believer out of BatJudas... At the very end of the film, three days later - we see Superman's finger twitch...or eye open or something along those lines.

Sure... not entirely original but it would work... and Supes would not be out of JL for very long...after the opening act... SUPERMAN REBORN.

it could happen...

Plus characters often don't stay dead in the comic books.

It could be done in a satisfying way, I will grant you that.

I just want to see the character developed in the DCEU and truly done justice to. I like the setup for him thus far. I would just feel cheated if he gets killed off right away and isn't brought back for a while.