What is DC Entertainment doing? What is their plan?

[The Sage]

I don't get why people think the people who will be giving this thing most of the money know or care that Zod was in a movie before.

Especially considering the last time he was seen on the big screen was 30 years ago.

 

[Kyle Rayner]

I'm a comic book fan at heart, I love reading them and I love it when they make it to the big screen. Transforming a few pages from a book to the big screen is a major logistical headache but we are talking about fiction which is easy to make. Superman is an iconic character, no one will ever deny, when I watched Batman Begins I knew of Ra's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow; Nolan didn't pull any punches and he left a note for a sequel. Both Nolan's Batman did great, for MOS they shouldn't have pulled any punches nor go back to something that has already been done. Personally I would've love to see Superman vs. the Eradicator, Brainiac, the Cyborg, Mongul or Metallo. With the exception of Smallville and animation, and Zod, Superman hasn't really fought anyone in the big screen. Hopefully MOS will be a GREAT FILM leading to other super character also maybe seeing a few cameos.

 

[Docker2.0]

I don't get why people think the people who will be giving this thing most of the money know or care that Zod was in a movie before.

Hence is the problem with the WB.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Hence is the problem with the WB.

It's their fault kids aren't into 30 year old movies?

 

[Docker2.0]

No, they just don't know or care about their properies.

 

[HighFivingMF]

No, they just don't know or care about their properies.

Yes they do... That's why they have them...

 

[DrCosmic]

Well the thing that worries me about MOS is it's almost like SR where it's a remake of the previous Superman series. SR picked up basically where Superman 2 left off and now once again they are using Zod. I'm not saying MOS won't perform well but I honestly don't believe it will make more than Thor did. They really should have used a different villian and I know I have said this before but tying those heroes together would have made more sense as well. Can you imagine a Darkseid invasion of Earth and each hero's movie kind of leads up to it? I can't either under WB. Just saying.............I think MOS will do ok but..................I'm just not sold on it.

This kind of response seems really weird to me. They are using 1 (not 3, not 2, 1) villain that we've seen before, with a brand new continuity, and people call it a remake.

The Dark Knight a remake of Batman 89 because it uses the Joker? Because apparently, adding in one new villain (Faora, Two Face, whoever) isn't enough for some people to feel like it's a different movie. But only with MOS, the same rule doesn't apply to other movies, apparently.

I'm a comic book fan at heart, I love reading them and I love it when they make it to the big screen. Transforming a few pages from a book to the big screen is a major logistical headache but we are talking about fiction which is easy to make. Superman is an iconic character, no one will ever deny, when I watched Batman Begins I knew of Ra's Al Ghul and the Scarecrow; Nolan didn't pull any punches and he left a note for a sequel. Both Nolan's Batman did great, for MOS they shouldn't have pulled any punches nor go back to something that has already been done. Personally I would've love to see Superman vs. the Eradicator, Brainiac, the Cyborg, Mongul or Metallo. With the exception of Smallville and animation, and Zod, Superman hasn't really fought anyone in the big screen. Hopefully MOS will be a GREAT FILM leading to other super character also maybe seeing a few cameos.

When you have no trunks, a black Perry White, red headed soft spoken Lois Lane, military as antagonists, major parts for Jor-El and Johnathan Kent, they're obviously not pulling any punches, they're making the movie they want to make, and if it's good, and it almost assuredly will be, then they'll make a mint, just like with the Batman Begins series.

I too would love to see all the alien and robotic villains in action, but they don't serve an origin story. You'd have to take time away from explaining what Krypton is and means and the powers it gives in order to address some separate robot creation or alien planet with its own powers and politics. This muddies the story, and makes it less about Superman, and lower quality overall. Plus, a villain represented by a human actor is more sympathetic and just makes for more concrete and believable storytelling. It's one thing to react to greenscreen and pretend it's mongul, it's another thing when Michael Shannon is in your face.

Zod is the ideal Superman origin story villain. He can be used as a dark mirror, as a connection to his father, a connection to his homeworld's destruction. He just *works* narratively. Would it have been nice to see someone else? Give MOS the freshness of BB? Yes, but Superman doesn't have another rogue that serves that origin mastermind role.

Well, other than Brainiac, and Brainiac either doesn't have real face, making the conflict more about AI motivation ala 2001 or I, Robot than personal beef OR he has a whole Koluan background that requires separate origin time.

The Dark Knight reused villains, Man of Steel reuses a villain. There's a nice parallelism there.

 

[Airwings]

I must say it's funny how people always can find some excuse to not have new villains in a Superman film. Now we will have Zod again, and I personality don't think it's ok to do so just because it was 30 years since last time.
How about a villain that wasn't used 50, 80, 100 or even 120 years ago, in fact NEVER USED???

The Dark Knight reused villains, Man of Steel reuses a villain. There's a nice parallelism there.

It's only that MOS represents BB in this case, and BB didn't re-use any villains. TDK themes will be found in a MOS 2.

 

[Docker2.0]

Not to mention TDK has Christopher freakin Nolan making it! Also.................let's be real, TDK's Batman really isn't a superhero. He's just a crazy guy with money stopping other crazy guys. He has no powers and neither does his villians. You could put Daredevil in the same situation so yeah.........it's not a Batman 89 remake, this is something entirely new.

 

[The Sage]

No one's making excuses for not having a new villain in the Superman film, just that they're cool with Zod since he hasn't been used in three decades plus he has a good backstory and works as a starting villain.

On top of that, if there are sequels, his actions and presence could lead to the introduction of some supervillains the same way the events of Batman Begins lead to the Joker.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Also.................let's be real, TDK's Batman really isn't a superhero. He's just a crazy guy with money stopping other crazy guys.

He does the same thing in the comics and he's still a superhero there...

 

[DrCosmic]

It's only that MOS represents BB in this case, and BB didn't re-use any villains. TDK themes will be found in a MOS 2.

[/COLOR]

Are you sure? That's a popular assumption, but I'm not sure it's fact. There's obviously origin story here, but there's more than that. What makes you say we won't have TDK-level themes in MOS?

I must say it's funny how people always can find some excuse to not have new villains in a Superman film. Now we will have Zod again, and I personality don't think it's ok to do so just because it was 30 years since last time.
How about a villain that wasn't used 50, 80, 100 or even 120 years ago, in fact NEVER USED???

I think it's funny that no one feels a need to say why we need new villains, or suggest any that will make for a better movie/story than Zod.

 

[DrCosmic]

He does the same thing in the comics and he's still a superhero there...

I understand what Docker's talking about. The BB, and moreso TDK follow the conventions of crime dramas and thrillers as opposed to comic book movies. It makes for a better movie, but the superhero conventions are all downplayed, and the crime/thriller conventions are all highlighted.

 

[Lord]

I think that what i liked to call the revamped trio: Swamp Thing, Sandman and Animal Man could be great movies

 

[HighFivingMF]

I understand what Docker's talking about. The BB, and moreso TDK follow the conventions of crime dramas and thrillers as opposed to comic book movies. It makes for a better movie, but the superhero conventions are all downplayed, and the crime/thriller conventions are all highlighted.

That I can understand. The way Docker worded it sounded like "Movie Batman isn't a superhero because-" then described every interpretation of Batman there is.

 

[Tobias]

On top of that, if there are sequels, his actions and presence could lead to the introduction of some supervillains the same way the events of Batman Begins lead to the Joker.

Why do fans have to wait for a sequel to get a cool never-done before Superman villain?

Singer promised what was lacking in SR would be addressed in the sequels and we saw how that turned out.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Why do fans have to wait for a sequel to get a cool never-done before Superman villain?

Who would be a better origin villain and why?

 

[Lord]

Brainiac because he could pratically serve the same porpose Zod is serving, conection to krypton, he could even be Kal-El's trainer until there's a twist where he isn't kryptonian and they are all extinct, and it would add to Superman being the last survivor of Krypton, something that could be contradicted with Zod's appearance in a sequel instead of just reusing him.
In fact you don't even need a complete origin, Grant Morrinson's Action comics 1 was actually very interesting and that take could work well with a superman movie

 

[Docker2.0]

This kind of response seems really weird to me. They are using 1 (not 3, not 2, 1) villain that we've seen before, with a brand new continuity, and people call it a remake.

The Dark Knight a remake of Batman 89 because it uses the Joker? Because apparently, adding in one new villain (Faora, Two Face, whoever) isn't enough for some people to feel like it's a different movie. But only with MOS, the same rule doesn't apply to other movies, apparently.

Yeah but Batman has had like 10 movies out. You can't help but reuse his villians, especially Joker who is just as big as Batman. The thing that messes up Superman is that SR basically was a sequel which Singer admitted himself and wanted to use Zod for his sequel to SR. Now we just happen to have Zod once again the villian for the new Superman movie. I'm just saying, a lot of people have complained about this and I feel their pain because I could relate. We've really only had 2 Superman villians on the big screen that were actually used in the comics. Eh, I'll think about this at work and try to get back later and explain it better.

I understand what Docker's talking about. The BB, and moreso TDK follow the conventions of crime dramas and thrillers as opposed to comic book movies. It makes for a better movie, but the superhero conventions are all downplayed, and the crime/thriller conventions are all highlighted.

Thanks for the support sir. That's exactly what I meant but at the time I was a little influenced by alcohol and my judgment was a tid bit impaired.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Brainiac because he could pratically serve the same porpose Zod is serving, conection to krypton, he could even be Kal-El's trainer until there's a twist where he isn't kryptonian and they are all extinct,

That's not even something remotely close to anything Brainiac would do. Plus it's kind of a space version of Neeson's character in Batman Begins. And I don't see the point of making Brainiac "serve the same purpose as Zod" when you have Zod and can make Brainiac serve the role of... Brainiac in a sequel.

 

[Lord]

I was just giving an idea of how he could have been used instead, in my opinion the movie shouldn't even have Zod or Brainiac teaching Clark, that was already Ras All ghoul's role in Batman Begins, and the person that influences Clark to become superman should be his adoptive fathers.

In my opinion they should have used the traveling the world elements from Birthright that they're already using and either have Brainiac eventually face superman or have another villain like Metallo or somebody else.

There wasn't even the need to make superman's origin again, his origin is already known by most and Smallville spent 10 seasons doing that, as i said they could start the movie like Grant Morrinson's action comics 1 where superman is already active and slowlly gaining people's trust (not everything was shoun in the comic)

 

[Tobias]

I was just giving an idea of how he could have been used instead, in my opinion the movie shouldn't even have Zod or Brainiac teaching Clark, that was already Ras All ghoul's role in Batman Begins, and the person that influences Clark to become superman should be his adoptive fathers.

In my opinion they should have used the traveling the world elements from Birthright that they're already using and either have Brainiac eventually face superman or have another villain like Metallo or somebody else.

There wasn't even the need to make superman's origin again, his origin is already known by most and Smallville spent 10 seasons doing that, as i said they could start the movie like Grant Morrinson's action comics 1 where superman is already active and slowlly gaining people's trust (not everything was shoun in the comic)

I agree. Doing another origin film is rehashing stuff that's been done to death. I think the complaints stem from a desire by fans to see something totally new and fresh in a Superman film.

 

[HighFivingMF]

There wasn't even the need to make superman's origin again, his origin is already known by most and Smallville spent 10 seasons doing that, as i said they could start the movie like Grant Morrinson's action comics 1 where superman is already active and slowlly gaining people's trust (not everything was shoun in the comic)

I don't know if the general public actually knows the origin. They don't read the comics, the movies are way older than them, and nobody watched Smallville. Hell, I know a lot of people that didn't know Batman's origin after they saw Dark Knight. Plus, they're trying to start a new franchise which i imagine they want to have a definitive beginning.

 

[Lord]

Most people do know his origin and Smallville was very popular and received some interest during it's 3-4 seasons.
It wouldn't go to 10 seasons with nobody watching when Angel was easily cancelled after season 5

 

[HighFivingMF]

Most people do know his origin and Smallville was very popular and received some interest during it's 3-4 seasons.
It wouldn't go to 10 seasons with nobody watching when Angel was easily cancelled after season 5

It wasn't very popular. It lasted so long because WB/CW isn't a major ratings-powerhouse network. Some people watched it. Smallville lasted longer than Angel because more people watched it than Angel...