I feel like we keep rehashing the same arguments.
Superman (casting, rumors, pix till release)
- Thread starter Obiwanshinobi
- Start date
^ That's cause we are 
If the writers want Clark to fight someone like himself, then there's no reason to invent Zod all over again - the character already exists on screen and is known to some degree.
^ Yep. Zod is part of the mythos and a popular character for the most part. Fans have to get over the fact that Superman simply does not have many interesting villains and I say that as a long time Superman fan. If this is a trilogy then we could very well see Metallo and Brainiac. Toyman and Parasite though? Those are minor villains at best. Maybe you could retool them to be more sinister than they are but frankly a general audience isn't gonna be interested in them. Darkseid is a possibility of course and so is Doomsday. As revealed earlier this year, Doomsday was in the conceptual artwork for Bryan Singer's Superman movie.
J
Jetfire
Guest
Imperiex!!!
^ You know what? That'd be interesting and bold. I happened to like Our Worlds at War even though almost everything that happened during it has been retconned lol.
In introducing a new movie continuity for a somewhat new audience, Zod has the virtue that his backstory is also Clark's - therefore the plot has a certain basic unity and simplicity.
There is a tendency to try to do this with superheroes on screen, for exactly that reason - tying Spider-Man's creation directly to that of the villain of the first film, the Green Goblin, for example, or Batman's to the Joker in the 1989 film, or making Doctor Doom into the "fifth member" of the Fantastic Four. Following the original storytelling techniques of the comics adds a level of implausibility to a movie, because the stories then consist of "our main character becomes a superhero and then just by coincidence and in short order an extraordinary threat presents itself."
^ Your point is? I agree with you.
Where did I suggest otherwise?
I don't know, if done well the "Hero is tied to the villain" thing can work out.
Like how the recent "Spectacular Spider-Man" show ended up tying almost all the villains to Spidey (they were created purposely by the main Crimelord Spidey was intimidating, Green Goblin was inadvertently created by Peter saving Norman from a villain which caused Norman to use the Goblin serum on himself so he'd never be helpless again).
It can be done similarly in Superman, where Luthor or Intergang purposely create villains like Metallo, Parasite and Bizarro to occupy Superman's time to keep him away from normal crooks.
Like how the recent "Spectacular Spider-Man" show ended up tying almost all the villains to Spidey (they were created purposely by the main Crimelord Spidey was intimidating, Green Goblin was inadvertently created by Peter saving Norman from a villain which caused Norman to use the Goblin serum on himself so he'd never be helpless again).
It can be done similarly in Superman, where Luthor or Intergang purposely create villains like Metallo, Parasite and Bizarro to occupy Superman's time to keep him away from normal crooks.
Exactly - for story and plotting reasons, it works better than the alternative as far as the structure of a film is concerned.
Captain America, of course, exists as an explicit, motivated response to the threat he opposes. The new Green Lantern movie utilizes elements of the current comic book continuity in such a way as to tie the incidents which precipitate the character's creation to the major threats posed in the film, when in terms of comic book history each of these elements was introduced serially over a period of years or decades.
I suspect "Man of Steel" will use current comic continuity as it's source material the same way that "Green Lantern" has. Might as well give Geoff Johns an executive producer title on these upcoming films 
^ How do you know that they won't use those in characters in future installments?
Isn't he DC/Warner's Chief Creative Officer? That amounts to basically the same thing.
I was joking and no it's not the same thing or else we would see his credit on screen during "Green Lantern".
And spend time explaining their origins? Nah.
^We're still assuming Lex is part of the movie LOL
LOLSimilar threads
