Count me among those hoping that Warner Bros. gives Brandon Routh another shot (and saddened that it probably won't happen).
Too Much Fun wrote:
I don't want to see them use Zod again because I love Terrence Stamp's performance of the character so much. While it may appear campy and outdated by today's standards, I still think it's perfect and do not like the idea of it being reinterpreted.
In some ways, I think the camp factor is part of what makes General Zod so endearing. Terrence Stamp was able to breathe such life, rediculous life, into such a one dimensional character, making lines like, "Kneel before Zod!" & "Then die as you deserve to!" so endlessly quotable.
Also, IIRC, wasn't Zod an original character created for the Donner movies? In that case, Stamp put his... stamp (
) on the role in a much stronger way than most comic book villains.
I can understand why Nolan an Goyer avoided Joker in the Batman Begins; Joker had been done to death in the past, and they instead focused on something new with Scarecrow and Ra's al Ghul.
If this Zod crap pans out, then Nolan and Goyer are only serving to make "Richard Donner Continues Part II". There is absolutely no reason to save Brainiac for later, and it's ridiculous that he hasn't been used in *any* film up until now.
Even before Nolan arrived to reboot the series, the Scarecrow & Ra's al-Ghul were the natural choices for villains in the next movies. In fact, before it became clear that Batman & Robin
was a hideous disaster, there were rumors that Joel Schumacher would be directing Batman V
with Howard Stern or Jeff Goldblum as the Scarecrow. And fans were always clamoring for Ra's al-Ghul to be filmed.
In those respects, Scarecrow & Ra's al-Ghul were due in the cycle anyway. But after that, there weren't really any decent new villains to be used. Who was left? Eggman? King Tut? (Actually, now that I think about it, the Mad Hatter or Clayface might have been cool.)
Mr. Laser Beam wrote:
I threw up a little in my mouth when I heard Snyder use that dreaded word..."modern."
MODERN? Why should Superman be MODERN? Great, that's all we need, turning him into a whiny existentialist emo prick. Superman is Superman; he does not, and should not, change. He should always be the idealist Boy Scout we grew up with. He should always be a true hero.
How does modern = emo? To make a Superman movie seriously now, they have to update some things.
"Modern" doesn't always mean "emo." However, in Hollywood, that often seems to be the case. Hollywood doesn't believe in genuinely righteous heros anymore and they don't think audiences do either. All of the superheroes have to have some kind of "issues."
And while getting loaded down with a bunch of emotional problems can work for most superheroes, it's the absolute antithesis of what Superman is.
Hollywood considers Superman to be a throwback to a "simpler" time. Ironically, I think Superman has always been a throwback. Consider the Richard Donner movies, where we got a straight heroic interpretation of Superman in the age of Watergate & malaise & all the other depressing crap from the 1970s. Hell, Superman was originally created in the 1930s, alongside the Great Depression, communist revolutions, & the rise of Nazi Germany.
To suggest that the morality of Superman must be "updated" for the 21st century shows a total disregard for who & what Superman is.
And frankly, I have serious questions about the morality & intelligence of the guy who directed 300,
then went on to make a slavish adapation of Watchmen
that still managed to thoroughly miss the point!
At least his Dawn of the Dead
remake was far better than it had any right to be.
It amuses me that knee jerk fan reaction to stories (I include myself big time in this) we have no idea how Zod will be used and yet there are already some who dislike the idea of him being used. No one had this reaction when Nolan announced that Joker and Two-Face would be used as villains in "Dark Knight" that I remember and that movie turned out okay and Batman has a plethora of rouges that can be used.
The Joker is such an iconic Batman
villain that every version of Batman needs its own version of the Joker at some point. As for Two-Face, I think we were all pretty happy that someone else was taking a crack at him considering how badly Batman Forever
botched it! At this stage, since the Burton/Schumacher movies covered nearly all of the decent Batman
villains in some capacity, it's easier to forgive the Nolan movies for reusing some of them.
On the other hand, the silver screen has barely scratched the surface of Superman
's rogues gallery. It's been pretty much all Lex Luthor all the time. The only other decent villain the movies have done is General Zod. And that's the one they're picking for their brand new adaptation?!?
I agree that it's inexcusable for Brainiac to never have been used yet. Plus there's Bizarro, Doomsday, Darkseid, Metallo, Mr. Mxyzptlk, etc. In this age of endless remakes, is it any surprise that audiences want a villain they've never seen in the cinemas before?