Zack Snyder will direct SUPERMAN
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
I threw up a little in my mouth when I heard Snyder use that dreaded word..."modern."
MODERN? Why should Superman be MODERN?
Go back to Russia.
Excuse me?
That's Our Garak!
Has that actually been stated yet? I haven't seen that bit of news anywhere.
Nolan and Goyer are obviously thinking long-term. I'm sure when they sat down to outline the story for this particular film, like they did for Batman Begins, they outlined not just one film but three. I'm not sure how the Joker had been done to death in the past; his last on-screen appearance before The Dark Knight was 1989's Batman (that is if you're discounting Mask of the Phantasm, but I was referring to live-action and not animation). Nolan probably went for Ra's al Ghul and Scarecrow to try and separate Begins from the previous films as much as possible since Batman & Robin put a rather nasty taste in people's mouths.
I think if you use Brainiac in the first film, then any other villain you use for future installments just isn't going to hold up. I don't mean to belittle the Superman mythology, but he doesn't have the best rogue's gallery. Brainiac in many ways is Superman's equivalent to the Joker for Batman. Using him in the first film doesn't make much sense unless you can foreshadow a bigger appearance later. After Brainiac, other threats such as Luthor and Metallo just don't measure up in my opinion. It makes sense to build toward a Brainiac appearance.
Also, Nolan likes to think narrative structure for his films and puts a prominence on story. He has said in the past that he usually comes up with the story first, and then decides which characters best inform that story. That's why the past two Batman films have been so strong because he doesn't cherry pick certain characters and then formulate a story around them; he lets the story inform the characters. If this first chapter of a new Superman on-screen mythology is going to tie into Superman's origins or history at all, it makes sense for the first film to feature General Zod, who has connections to Krypton and Superman's past. I can see why Nolan and Goyer would choose Zod coming out of the gate. It makes sense.
Of course, Zod will probably not be the only villain in the story. I'm sure we'll see Luthor as well with some foreshadowing or cameo appearances from other villains that will later play larger roles in future installments. Nolan likes to create a believable world full of rich characters and judging from his Batman films he doesn't just settle on one villain, but many.
I'd go with Zod/Brainiac then Darkseid and to a lesser extent Doomsday in the sequels.
I never got Doomsday's appeal. All he does is smash and destroy things. Oh, and he eventually kills Superman. Not a really interesting villain if you ask me.
J
Jetfire
Guest
Doomsday is appealing if there are other villains surrounding him...like Lex or even Zod...just Superman Vs Doomsday is pretty boring...it would take an elaborate plot much like the cartoon movie to set up Superman & Doomsday showdown and then of course bringing Superman back after his death.
Superman should work at least for a percieved honest outlet.
Which is why I said lesser extent about Doomsday, he's essentially the Hulk sans Banner alter ego except for the whole Davis Bloom thing in Smallville. For this though I know they want to modernize this film or make it more grounded. But Superman is really going to need some heavy hitters for antagonists in addition to the likes of Lex (master criminal), Brainiac (master mind) and Zod (somebody on his level). Know what I mean?
Count me among those hoping that Warner Bros. gives Brandon Routh another shot (and saddened that it probably won't happen).
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.
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.)
"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.
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?
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.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.)
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.
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?
I'd rather not see Doomsday in a Superman film. There are enough heavy-hitters without him (such as Brainiac, Metallo, Darkseid, Zod, Parasite, Solomon Grundy).
So does Brainiac (at least in certain interpretations).
Which is why I think Brainiac is going to be featured in some capacity, possibly similar to Scarecrow or probably Zsaz in Batman Begins, but unlike those villains will get a much larger role in sequel(s).
J
Jetfire
Guest
Count me among those hoping that Warner Bros. gives Brandon Routh another shot (and saddened that it probably won't happen).
Also, IIRC, wasn't Zod an original character created for the Donner movies? In that case, Stamp put his... stamp (
There is a link in here(this thread) quoting Snyder saying Routh will likely not be considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Zod
The character first appeared in Adventure Comics #283 (April 1961)
Snyder and Nolan will probably want to distance this iteration of Superman from previous versions as much as possible, so Brandon Routh was always a longshot. It looks like he's set to be the George Lazenby of the Superman franchise.
Except, unlike Lazenby, Routh was actually talented!
I don't know. I thought Lazenby did a pretty good job in On Her Majesty's Secret Service and I would have liked to have seen him continue at least for You Only Live Twice. I liked Routh in the role; it's disappointing to know he won't be back.
Snyder and the studio can be smart and give the role back to Routh. Why waste all kinds of time on yet another talent search? Two years till release may seem like a lot of time, but I'm not sure it is for a project like this.
I would love for Routh to come back, but I just don't see it happening. I see Snyder and Nolan doing their own thing. However, if Snyder were to approach Routh about coming back, he would have to audition for a different kind of Superman- I'm sure whatever version of Superman that Snyder and Nolan are planning, that it's going to be different than what Singer had done for Superman Returns.
Similar threads
