Agreed. Have you seen the animated Superman vs. The Elite? Yes, it’s aimed at kids, but this is the exact point it makes.
When I think of Brainiac, I think of alien sentient android with extremely advanced technology, capable of telepathy and mind control, and multiple bodies subject to a central intelligence far away from danger, and not just some green dude that puts cities in bottles. With a good script (of course) I see him as a bigger, more interesting threat than Luthor. Zod is merely an evil version of Superman. We’ve already had evil versions of Spider-Man, Hulk and Iron Man recently: I favor a little variety.
ProTip: When looking for a quote from the creator to prove someone wrong about a piece of media, don’t use a quote that proves me right.
“It’s kind of a reboot and it’s kind of sequel” supports my argument, not yours.
Why do you both (and some others) keep talking about a movie that doesn’t exist because it was never made and even if it had been made it would have been destroyed, utterly and completely, so that history would not have such an abhorrent blemish?
Are you talking about Hulk or The Incredible Hulk? Because one was much better than I was expecting and one was complete and total trash.
And anyone who doesn’t know which is which shouldn’t be participating in a discussion about comic book movies.
If it was a sequel, the answer to the question would have been simple: “It’s a sequel.”
There’d be no hemming and hawing or creation of portmanteau or “crap, we don’t want people to think there’s no need to buy the DVD of the other film.”
If the second was a sequel to the first then they’d either both be counted in the Marvel Cinematic Universe or neither would be counted.
One is counted, the other is not. They’re not part of the same fictional universe.
A darker, more cynical world, that I got no problem with. A darker, more cynical Superman, that’s what I’m fretting. Batman can brood. Batman wants to bring fear to evil-doers. Batman is a creature of the night. A darker, nastier Batman, that’s fine.
Superman isn’t out to bring fear, but truth and justice. A morose, nasty Superman, that’s not fine. Not to me. An indecisive Clark Kent, facing prospective futures, that’s different from “dark” or "cynical.’
Wait? Superman without the spit curl? This movie is gonna suck.
Sadly, I’m a little not-joking. Plus I HATE the rubber uniform.
A few things from this week’s Entertainment Weekly article. Amy Adams’ Lois Lane will be blond. Laurence Fishburn’s Perry White will be black, presumably. Most interesting to me is the rational for the skin-tight costume. It is a customary Kryptonian garment meant to be worn under battle armor. Supes just doesn’t have the armor which is meant to be attached to it.
Most interesting, and possibly Spoiler territory:
On Krypton, children are genetically engineered test tube babies rather than being born in the conventional way, except for you-know-who.
Why does his traditional Kryptonian undergarment have an S on it?
I’m legitimately curious to know if the writers have come up for some crazy reason for it.
They’re likely going to use the same reason they used in the first movie. It’s actually a Kryptonian symbol that resembles an S. Kind of a family crest.
They’re starting to ramp up on the viral stuff.
Zod is coming: YOU ARE NOT ALONE - YouTube
My goodness, that is intriguing.
I am not a fan-boy for Kal-El, but this made me really interested.
Wouldn’t it be truly great the movie turns out to not be a disappointment?
I don’t know if this is the moviemakers’ take on it, but for a number of years now in the comics, the “S” is actually the symbol for the House of El (Kal-El, Jor-El, Whatthe-El).
I’m not a fan of the trend of gritty reboots either, ranging from Daniel Craig’s James Bond to all of the fairy tale story reboots.
However, I think Superman would be a good candidate for a gritty reboot, especially with his ambiguous origin story - the part from when he crashes to when he shows up in metropolis. Disclaimer: I didn’t read the comics, nor did I watch Smallville.
Plus Superman is a little too bland compared to other heroes. He has just as much angst, internal conflict, and inklings of alienation as anyone else - perhaps moreso. It’d be nice to see this on the big screen. I think Superman returns wanted to touch on that but it was just terribly executed.
This is slightly disappointing.
I was hoping for more internal strife rather than a 3rd party maniac making the hero choose between himself and the world. We’ve seen that song and dance 3 times over in the Dark Knight movies for a cumulative of 9-10 hrs. Iron Man 3 looks to follow that formula too.
I was really hoping for old-school spidey-type conflict of what the alter ego wants vs what the hero is expected to do.
It might look that way because he always wins and his power level is through the roof. What you’re ignoring is all the beatings he has to take and that he’s the ultimate target for any mad scientist with a grudge or super alien.
I suppose the idea of SUPERMAN (you know, the invulnerable guy, bastion of things good), might be sought as a fugitive from justice is rather compelling. Not just a physical threat but an essential threat to what him… him. Whoever, ‘him’ is. I always think of him as Kal-El. But, I am after all, a geek.
I think Rick’s just referring to the name; the character could work but I agree that the name is just not workable nowadays.
Please, for the love of God, no. I have had enough of the whiny, conflicted school of super-“heroes”.