Things you don't want to see happen in the next Superman movies

[Fresh Prince]

Can Bruce Wayne give WW a challegenge in fighting?...Bruce can prepare for her.

 

[BestGirl]

Why not? As long as they are good, they can keep churning them out. They have hardly scratched the surface of his psych, his rogues gallery and his world in the movies, so there's plenty of mythos to go around.

Based on the fact that most superheroes struggle to get out three good movies in a row, much less six. Plus, I've heard that Superman has a rather weak rogue's gallery. But I see you've addressed that:

Superman's rogue's gallery is huge and most of his villains are great.
Its Ironman who has all the lame ones and yet they manage to keep the movies going. Because the seem to have found what the people want and they re giving it to them.

So far Favreau has only made two movies, and we don't even know how good IM2 is going to be. Besides, Tony is the main attraction of IM, more so than his villains. I don't think Superman or Clark is interesting enough to sustain a movie if the supervillain sucks.

 

[solidsnake86]

Batman arguably has the best rogues gallery and they managed to use them up in 2 movies that there scraping the bottom of the barrel for the third. If you want to go for the trilogy and make three good to great films superman has enough villains for that they just need to be well executed. Going by whats been written in the comics I would argue that brainiac, luthor, and zod (yes I can hear the sighs from everyone) are probably his strongest villains in being able to create a compelling story. Side characters to accompany luthor would be metallo and parasite. After that you get into spider-man territory, which ya he has some of the best rogues in comics too, but who really wants to see whats left in a live action movie besides the hardcore fans.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Batman arguably has the best rogues gallery and they managed to use them up in 2 movies that there scraping the bottom of the barrel for the third.

So the only good rogues he has are Ras, Scarecrow, Joker and TwoFace?
You obviously never heard of Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, ManBat, Black Mask, Deadshot, Harley, Ivy, Freeze, Bane, Mad Hatter, etc.

Going by whats been written in the comics I would argue that brainiac, luthor, and zod (yes I can hear the sighs from everyone) are probably his strongest villains in being able to create a compelling story

You obviously never heard of Darkseid, Mongul, Livewire, Grundy, Bizarro, Intergang, etc.
And basically, even the lamest villain can turn into gold if a good writer puts some work into it.

 

[wattabrownsound]

i don't want them to forget to bring up the villains name in the movies. have someone say it at least once. i don't want the villains ending up like Venom and Sandman in spidey 3 where their names were not mentioned at all.

i said the villains name should be mentioned at least once but i don't want it mentioned in the same manner as The Abomination's name in The Incredible Hulk movie. it was more of a metaphor where the audience would just go "hey they said his comic book name".
if a villains name is used at least once use it like how the Joker's name was used at the end of Batman Begins where the villain actually calls himself by his comic book name.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Based on the fact that most superheroes struggle to get out three good movies in a row, much less six. Plus, I've heard that Superman has a rather weak rogue's gallery. But I see you've addressed that:

Superman's rogues gallery is hardly weak. Its one of the best out there. The Flash, Wonder Woman and Ironman are the ones with the weakest rogues galleries.

So far Favreau has only made two movies, and we don't even know how good IM2 is going to be.

That's true.

Besides, Tony is the main attraction of IM, more so than his villains. I don't think Superman or Clark is interesting enough to sustain a movie if the supervillain sucks.

Tony is the main attraction, like Batman is the main attraction. The same with Superman. Everybody loves superman. And if some superhero has a ton of great stories to be told, its him.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Based on the fact that most superheroes struggle to get out three good movies in a row, much less six. Plus, I've heard that Superman has a rather weak rogue's gallery. But I see you've addressed that:



So far Favreau has only made two movies, and we don't even know how good IM2 is going to be. Besides, Tony is the main attraction of IM, more so than his villains. I don't think Superman or Clark is interesting enough to sustain a movie if the supervillain sucks.

Superman is bigger and better then Tony Starks....More popular too...Superman can sustain a movie with enough interests if the villian sucks....If the movie is written good.

 

[Webhead2006]

I my not know all there needs to know about dc supervillains but i know there is plently of great ones out there. I do agree batman and spider-man are consider to have the best rouges out there in comics. Plus in my opinion any villain written and acted well could be a big player. Its all about how they use the character.

 

[BestGirl]

Tony is the main attraction, like Batman is the main attraction. The same with Superman. Everybody loves superman. And if some superhero has a ton of great stories to be told, its him.

Yeah, but I don't think Superman has the personality to hold up a movie that has a weak villain, the way Tony did in IM1. People love Supes, but more than anything I'm sure they want to see some action-packed battles.

 

[solidsnake86]

So the only good rogues he has are Ras, Scarecrow, Joker and TwoFace?
You obviously never heard of Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, ManBat, Black Mask, Deadshot, Harley, Ivy, Freeze, Bane, Mad Hatter, etc.
You obviously never heard of Darkseid, Mongul, Livewire, Grundy, Bizarro, Intergang, etc.
And basically, even the lamest villain can turn into gold if a good writer puts some work into it.

In terms of batman those rogues have the best stories that could be adapted into film, catwoman isn't a villain. I've heard of them but it doesnt mean they will make good movies. I'm talking about stories that you could tell with villains from the comics and which can provide the most growth for the actual hero, you know the ones that the movie are supposed to be about and not how many villains can we fit into a film with no purpose.

Mongul are Darkseid really don't do much for me besides having them invading and thats where it begins and ends in terms of story. Half of the villains you listed repeat themselves. As a side note the flash has one of the strongest rogues gallery out there so I take it you've never heard of them.

 

[Webhead2006]

for me its all about how they are written and how the actor picked for the role plays it. The lamest villain could get an great script and be a serious threat.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Yeah, but I don't think Superman has the personality to hold up a movie that has a weak villain, the way Tony did in IM1. People love Supes, but more than anything I'm sure they want to see some action-packed battles.

First of all, i dont think that Tony is cracking jokes as much as he does in the movie. He is a magnificent bastard, but he is a lot more serious than he is in the movie. So that was mostly down to Downey projecting a bit of himself there. And besides, how many movies with Downey cracking jokes can you watch before you get bored? There needs to be character development, there need to be good villains.
Anyway, just because Clark isnt cracking jokes all the time, it doesnt mean that he isnt compeling as a character. Far from it. Personally, even though his villains are god tier, what really fascinates me and draws me to the franchise is Clark himself.
And like i said before, Clark is the definition of the white knight, both as Clark and as Superman. I've written above how the mere presence of him would make a robber feel ashamed of committing a crime, how he boosts the morale and hopes of people worldwide. If he dies, the impact around the world would be 1000 times the impact Princess Diana's death had and that's not because he can lift cars and fly. And all that says something.

Besides, every superhero needs a good villain a good story with character development in order for the story to work. Would a batman movie franchise only based on him just beating villains survive for long?

In terms of batman those rogues have the best stories that could be adapted into film, catwoman isn't a villain. I've heard of them but it doesnt mean they will make good movies. I'm talking about stories that you could tell with villains from the comics and which can provide the most growth for the actual hero, you know the ones that the movie are supposed to be about and not how many villains can we fit into a film with no purpose.

What Webhead says:

for me its all about how they are written and how the actor picked for the role plays it. The lamest villain could get an great script and be a serious threat.

Also, it seems to me that you havent read many comics to be able to judge whether a certain villain can provide good stories for the movies. What if Nolan uses the Riddler in the sequel and the movie beats TDK?
And really now, you really dont think that the riddler or freeze can make a good movie? Wow

Mongul are Darkseid really don't do much for me besides having them invading and thats where it begins and ends in terms of story. Half of the villains you listed repeat themselves. As a side note the flash has one of the strongest rogues gallery out there so I take it you've never heard of them.

And here you prove that you know almost nothing about these villains. Mongul doesnt invade. He has his own planet where he organises gladiatorial games and wants Superman as his fighter. Also, you obviously havent read one of the greatest Superman stories called "For the man who has everything". At least watch the JL animated episode that is an adaptation of that.
And Darkseid is one of the best and most proven villains of Superman. You are wrong to dismiss him in favour of a Terminator with a Kryptonite heart or a dude that sucks the power of everyone he touches.

And a word of advice: Read some comics or at least watch some JL and STAS episodes. Not just you, everyone who only knows superman from the movies. And learn to have some fun. A good story doesnt necessarily have to be a ton of character development, it can also be fun and entertaining. I dont know if a movie with Solomon Grundy would work, but in the comics he can give very entertaining stories.

 

[Webhead2006]

sure i myself dont know everything there is to be on most dc guys, i dont read dc. and my only takes on them is movies, cartoons, and reading up online about X villain i might not know everything about. But like i was trying to say in my post i do think superman has some good villains that could be good characters to use and with the right script could be kickbutt guys and all that.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I agree with you. I was responding to him, with the help of your post. He is so dismissive of things he seems to know very little about.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea i get what u are saying, i was just also saying like i have before i am not a big time dc guy. I am a marvel guy through and through. But superheroes are one thing i do really like and i am down for any one that peaks my interest. Plus like i said when i dont know about "X" thing i either look it up online or ask around to others who know more.

 

[SuperMike335!!]

Can Bruce Wayne give WW a challegenge in fighting?...Bruce can prepare for her.

Should make own thread for it in WW section, not the movie section, the misc or WW universe section. Discuss there.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Should make own thread for it in WW section, not the movie section, the misc or WW universe section. Discuss there.

Meh... Its not like there is much to talk about when WB doesnt even know whether they ll make another movie or when.

Can Bruce Wayne give WW a challegenge in fighting?...Bruce can prepare for her.

He has backup plans to beat every other hero in case they went rogue. Those plans were used by Ras in "Tower of Babel" in order to beat the JLA. I dont remember what he had in store for WW though.
Batman can use gadgets and the element of surprise on her, but in a hand to hand combat, he is toast in a minute. There is no Kryptonite against her. She is a warrior who has been training and fighting for millenia. And she has superpowers!

 

[solidsnake86]

I actually have watched the superman animated series and read many comic books so dont be so quick to judge with your demeaning comments about go watch this and read that. I know about the whole mongul thing, but think realistically for a second, when it comes to a movie, you're going to send superman to a planet to become a fighter, besides comic book fanboys who actually wants to see that. There is a reason why they used joker and two face again in the batman movies, because people want to see them.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I apologize for the demeaning tone. I didnt mean it. Its just that i was already having a difficult arguement with M.O.Steel on another thread and i was all fired up.

Joker, TwoFace and Ras are the top of Batman's villains and thats why they re used a lot. Its like Lex and Brainiac as Superman's villains.
Anyway, as Webhead said, it all depends on the writer. I consider the puppetmaster a ridiculous villain but a good writer could give us a great and interesting story. Who knows?
The point is, that right after Lex and Brainiac on the top of Superman's villains, its Darkseid and Mongul who come next. So it would be a pity not to use them in favour of a Terminator with a K heart.
And btw i think that many people would be interested to see Superman in other planets like Mongul's Warworld or Darkseid's Apocolips. Its a comic book movie about an alien superhero, why ground it on earth and reality?

 

[solidsnake86]

No problem man, we're here to discuss our opinions and your right, any villain can be turned into a good one under any writer. In terms of metallo I dunno if I posted it but I see him as more of a henchmen to lex luthor because I feel he can't really carry a movie on his own. Have you ever read last son? I think in that particular book and I believe it was action comics annual 10 Geoff Johns did a great job of fleshing out zod and really brought out more to his character as well as non's. I would much rather see a villain tied into krypton then say darkseid, which there is no doubting he is a good villain, but I feel it would come off as forced by throwing him in there.

In terms of the grounding it on earth, I'm just thinking of it as a non fan wanting to get people back to the franchise, no matter how you look at it lois is an important part of the mythos and taking superman out and putting him on another planet wouldnt seem right.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I often catch myself posting with a condescending tone and every time i regret it. Sorry.

I ve been meaning to read Red Son for a while but i never got around to. I have to do it some time.

In terms of the grounding it on earth, I'm just thinking of it as a non fan wanting to get people back to the franchise, no matter how you look at it lois is an important part of the mythos and taking superman out and putting him on another planet wouldnt seem right.

Of course, i agree. I too view Metallo as a secondary villain, usually a thug of Lex's. But after 2 or 3 movies that will have established Superman and all the characters of the franchise, it wouldnt bad if they introduce Darkseid or Mongul. They are after all, second in the gallery after Lex.
I dont want the whole plot taking place in their planets, Superman would only be there for a small part of the story. But the inclusion of other planets and aliens is certainly interesting to me.

I like it when the villains have a tie to Krypton, and thats why i like the Kryptonian origin of Brainiac, but i never got into Zod. I hated him in the Reeve's movie and from then on i could never get to like him. As for Darkseid, what can i say, i love that guy. Be it the design, the Omega beams, the story, Apocolips, the fifth dimension of the New Gods, the godlike voice of Michael Ironside who voiced him in STAS and JL.... I just love him!
He is no more forced that Brainiac. Two entities from other planets (brainiac is kryptonian only in STAS and Smallville) obsessing over earth and Kal-El. Why is one more forced than the other?

BTW, here is Michael Ironside as Darkseid (what a perfect voice for the role):
[YT]ZVzGyqSbGew[/YT]
[YT]aOmMTRZyoIY&feature=related[/YT]

 

[solidsnake86]

I wasn't fond of zod from the movies either but after I read "last son" my opinion changed. I like darkseid too its just he doesn't seem like a superman villain, more of a justice league type threat and I really dont think his character could be done justice without seriously changing some things within the context of the movie to fit within a decent running time.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Meh... Its not like there is much to talk about when WB doesnt even know whether they ll make another movie or when.

He has backup plans to beat every other hero in case they went rogue. Those plans were used by Ras in "Tower of Babel" in order to beat the JLA. I dont remember what he had in store for WW though.
Batman can use gadgets and the element of surprise on her, but in a hand to hand combat, he is toast in a minute. There is no Kryptonite against her. She is a warrior who has been training and fighting for millenia. And she has superpowers!

So she is the best figher in DCU?

 

[Young Superman]

Other Kryptonians, IMO Superman should be the sole survivor of the doomed planet Krypton.

 

[Webhead2006]

well sure superman should be the only living survivor of krypton(with maybe a hint or two on kara is out there somewhere). But i dont see why we couldnt see zod again and other phantom zone stuff. It could be a good play on things. But yea i agree next go around first film should have a foe who hasnt made it to be big screen yet like brainiac, or metallo, with lex in a secondary role in the film. Then becoming the bigger thorn in sequel and all that.