ervann
Super Deformin'
- Joined
- May 10, 2005
- Messages
- 309
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Let's assume Singer is doing 2 more sequels. And this is not about who should be the villain, but who is most likely to be, given what we know about Singer and the foundation he has set.
We know one of the villains in the sequel(s) is going to be Kryptonian-related. Maybe all of them.
We've got a piece of Krypton that looks eeriely like Doomsday floating in space, with crystals, and laced with Kryptonite (I like the idea of Dommsday laced with Kryptonite actually).
But most importantly, I think Doomsday as a character can translate well onscreen and provide some serious action and sequences.
In itself Doomsday is not inherently complicated. His agenda is straightforward. He provides a plausible tool for someone smarter e.g. Luthor to use. In the hands of a good writer he can be given some perspective and texture.
It is a character Singer can possibly handle. I'm not sure of he'll do most of the other villains well enough without messing up the plot. Doomsday is also a newer villain with less baggage- Singer may be more comfortable handling him.
Doomsday can look really awesome onscreen, as close as a physical obstacle to Superman as any other options. In fact he's almost another kind of 'natural' disaster. Brainiac, Darkseid, Bizzaro, Mongul will all be much harder to pull off. Too much of a risk.
Sure, we all remember Nuclear Man, the whole 'use-him-to-kill-Superman' plot. But it doesn't need to be.
Lastly, as popular as the likes of Brainiac, Darkseid, Bizzaro are, most fans won't complain about Doomsday, cos it means a classic villain, kickass action and destruction - which will draw in the general audience. It's the SAFE choice.
While we're on this, there should be a poll on who fans think is the MOST LIKELY villain in the sequel(s).
We know one of the villains in the sequel(s) is going to be Kryptonian-related. Maybe all of them.
We've got a piece of Krypton that looks eeriely like Doomsday floating in space, with crystals, and laced with Kryptonite (I like the idea of Dommsday laced with Kryptonite actually).
But most importantly, I think Doomsday as a character can translate well onscreen and provide some serious action and sequences.
In itself Doomsday is not inherently complicated. His agenda is straightforward. He provides a plausible tool for someone smarter e.g. Luthor to use. In the hands of a good writer he can be given some perspective and texture.
It is a character Singer can possibly handle. I'm not sure of he'll do most of the other villains well enough without messing up the plot. Doomsday is also a newer villain with less baggage- Singer may be more comfortable handling him.
Doomsday can look really awesome onscreen, as close as a physical obstacle to Superman as any other options. In fact he's almost another kind of 'natural' disaster. Brainiac, Darkseid, Bizzaro, Mongul will all be much harder to pull off. Too much of a risk.
Sure, we all remember Nuclear Man, the whole 'use-him-to-kill-Superman' plot. But it doesn't need to be.
Lastly, as popular as the likes of Brainiac, Darkseid, Bizzaro are, most fans won't complain about Doomsday, cos it means a classic villain, kickass action and destruction - which will draw in the general audience. It's the SAFE choice.
While we're on this, there should be a poll on who fans think is the MOST LIKELY villain in the sequel(s).
