• 49 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Martian81 (87 posts) - - Show Bio

This is just a purely fan boy question.I've seen MoS and it totally blew my mind the story, cinematography, action scenes were EPIC .Sincerely it is better than Avengers in my humble opinion.Having said that we know usually the rule of thumb is a sequel of big budget film usually has to be even bigger and more epic but honestly will MoS 2 really be able to surpass MoS since they set the bar so high in the reboot? I think MoS2 will definitely have a more powerful villain..I see many people calling for Brainiac,Despero,Doomsday e.t.c however I realise to stay grounded at an emotional level it has to be a human villain, because another alien would not set it apart from the first .So my guess is perhaps Lex Luthor and Dr.Ivo join forces and perhaps create several prototypes of Amazo robots.Just thinking out loud.

Anyway to stay on point, I would love to Lex and perhaps an alien villain to make the perfect balance in the sequel Brainiac as the main villain in the sequel would be cool if they found him in some remnant of Zod's ships.They can say Lex was digging into it via Cadmus and stumbled upon a pod of some featureless humanoid form that he awakes .The story can go that Zod had a plan to artificially synthesise kryptonian DNA using a nano-cellular A.I who is Brainiac (along the model of Smallvile's Professor Milton Fine, that was a very nice depiction of Brainiac). Anyway the story could grow from there

#2 Posted by theTimeStreamer (2841 posts) - - Show Bio

if it doesnt suck, it shall be better.

#3 Posted by Skunkstein (591 posts) - - Show Bio

A more menacing villian, a more fluid story, less flashbacks, more progression, more Clark Kent, more advancement between Lois and Clark, more super powers(freeze breath etc.), maybe a cameo from another hero....

#4 Posted by ssejllenrad (12847 posts) - - Show Bio

More city smashing and neck breaking to piss off the whiners. :)

#5 Posted by ltbrd (562 posts) - - Show Bio

I think that might be a bit of a stretch, particularly since MoS was trying so hard to keep the character and concept "grounded". This seems more too Silver Age/suspend all believability concept than what the tone of MoS was going for.

Considering where MoS left off.....a Metropolis in major need of rebuilding and the government actively tracking and (we can assume) researching Superman....could give us a good look at where the sequel can go. MoS was very much a duke it out/alien invasion and smackdown film. It tried to pull at the heart strings but, IMHO at least, that was the weakest point of the films script and acting and felt more like the creative team knowing it had to be there but not knowing how to do it in the wake of the actions scenes the film delivered.

As such, MoS2 may benefit from a better look at how Metropolis deals with his presence in the wake of MoS. At the end of the day the people of Metropolis are going to be hurting. Hundreds, maybe thousands, would have died, billions in property damage has occurred, there is probably massive blackouts and infrastructure issues now........the perfect breeding ground for crime and violence. How do the people of Metropolis respond to that and how do they respond to the man that in many ways had a hand in it (Jenny's line of "he saved us" was, in many ways, a load of crap and completely out of context to what was going on in the film).

This is definitely a great set-up to the introduction of Intergang, who could use the destruction and rebuilding efforts to set-up a power hold in Metropolis, leading to a huge crime wave that the police are unable to contain and what divides Clark's attention as a reporter and Superman, fully establishing the dual identity aspect of his character.

It is also a perfect way to introduce Lex Luthor. I wouldn't take it so far that Lex is a power mad/evil genius kind of guy. I'd actually go the opposite direction, where Lex is a Bill Gates-like figure, a huge philanthropist, very much into city programs and beneficial projects. He's not a villain, per se, at the start of MoS2. But he is not a fan of Superman, given both the destruction his presence caused/causes as well as Lex's belief in human progress and seeing Superman as a restrictive force in that sense.

This combination drives the plot of the film, as the government becomes increasingly concerned with Intergang's growing hold on the city and Superman's continued activities. Lex Luthor is called in to try and figure out a means of ending both problems, and as a result the Metallo armor is pushed forward ahead of its R&D schedule (thus bringing in both a Secret Origins/new 52 origins concept along with the episode of the animated series with the police power armor) with SWAT Officer John Corben being the first "pilot". His presence in Metropolis opens up the question, "does the world need Superman or can it handle its own problems", and drives the emotional aspect of the story as we see just what kind of man Clark is and how he isn't corrupted by absolute power even as Corben slips into madness and delusion from continuous use of the suit (much like in the animated series episode) leading to the eventual showdown between him and Superman as Corben begins recklessly slaughtering anyone connected with Intergang, even in-front of the public.....which also brings up the question of Clark killing Zod and how that is both perceived and what it did to change Clark's opinion of his role and use of power.

Throw in a few metahumans (thus bringing that concept into the DC movie universe so it can be reasonably believed that superhumans do exist in later films like, I don't know, a Justice League movie, maybe) working for Intergang (the connection to Apokolips doesn't have to be there and is possibly too great a stretch but metahuman assassin's have always been at the organizations beck and call), my personal choice would be Livewire (good way to make the audience believe Corben's decent into madness may have been from a shorting out of the suit due to a hit from her) and Riot (yeah, a bit too Agent Smith but it would still look cool to have Superman chasing dozens of him down and give a good reason why the police are having such trouble getting Intergang under control when faced with overwhelming numbers) and I think you've got a film that continues to open up Superman's mythology while also not letting concepts and ideas from MoS die but instead push the narrative forward.

Last piece.....no kryptonite. MoS already suffered with the environmental idea (in concept not a bad one but not well executed) so bringing in kryptonite to the sequel would just keep the bad wheel turning. Also, the Superman of MoS is not, overall, as powerful as his comic book counterpart (though that is debatable as the film doesn't do a good job of keeping his power levels consistent but he did get knocked around and slightly winded by large caliber ammunition and high grade explosives) so there isn't a great need to bring in a crippling device like there was in the five previous films. In this way the new movie Superman is more like the animated series (pre-Justice League) version. I could see a play on the red solar radiation concept reworked for the film, something along the lines of a laser weapon system in the Metallo armor that has a wavelength similar to red solar radiation. Rather than strip Superman of his powers, which I never really understood since he's still in a yellow sun environment, the resulting radiation is one that can really knock him down and hurt him as the red wavelength from it and the yellow wavelength he absorbs play havok within his body and cause him great pain. This way we get a viable weapon to use against him while its also something he could avoid or even counter with his heat vision (how cool would a scene be of Corben, in armor, and Superman flying above Metropolis and having a DBZ-style collision of red solar laser and heat vision!!!) rather than simply falling to his knees in crippling pain because he's near a glowing rock. Combine that with the amount of power Livewire is putting out and you have a number of ways Superman will be challenged in the film and goes beyond simple punching.

#6 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (33889 posts) - - Show Bio

Being better written

#7 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

More of Clark Kent in Metropolis with the Daily Planet staff will go along way.

Man of Steel was about getting Clark to the position of superhero, human and Kryptonian, and making him realise just how insane a task it is to be Superman. Once MoS 2 rolls around, it can focus more of Clark trying to exist in the same world as Superman.

#8 Posted by Black_Claw (3007 posts) - - Show Bio

@ltbrd: that's a really good idea! The events of MOS is perfect ammo for Lex in the sequel.

#9 Posted by Martian81 (87 posts) - - Show Bio

Itbrd..I like your idea.I do agree Lex will be the philanthropist helping rebuild the city for the PR .However Lex will always be Lex and I see him being portrayed as an anti-hero kind of like magneto's 'never again' mantra which will mean he will join forces with the military to fund an anti alien invasion defence system. A purely benevolent Lex would be a hard sell, insecure maybe, but not naive plus the hunger for corporate power has to be shown.

As for kryptonite, well it doesn't have to be as nonsensical as an entire island a la S.R(that was pretty retarded), but it has to come in the sequel.Many people even in the White House would be afraid of Superman and containment plans have to be developed.It would be cool to work the kryptonite idea along that angle..maybe a synthesized Kryptonian ore that was found on Zod's ship and made by human scientists to weaken Kal El.Though I think my idea would be to explain that Brainiac is somehow constituted of Kryptonite at a cellular level and while it is harmless to Kryptonians as it's from Krypton, Brainiac changed the properties to siphon Kryptonian life-force as a defence mechanism against Kryptonian scientists in case they'd shut him down. So if Brainiac is modelled along the Milton Fine version after he is destroyed they can say pieces of his body were deactivated but still possessed a residual weakening effect on any Kryptonian.

#10 Edited by Durakken (1593 posts) - - Show Bio

This'll do... This would do very nicely...

#11 Posted by gator4eva (396 posts) - - Show Bio

Lex should definitely be in the sequel but I don't want him as the main villain yet. I think Brainiac or Doomsday should be the main villain. With Lex being the cause of their appearance perhaps. My point is that I'd rather have Lex pulling the strings and waiting to strike before he actually takes over a movie as the main villain.

#12 Posted by UltimateSMfan (1436 posts) - - Show Bio

i think it'll top it with a Lex Luthor story for the ages....like TDK did with the Joker. They need to show Lex's Genius and Master mindedness(that a word?)

#13 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

More of Clark Kent in Metropolis with the Daily Planet staff will go along way.

Man of Steel was about getting Clark to the position of superhero, human and Kryptonian, and making him realise just how insane a task it is to be Superman. Once MoS 2 rolls around, it can focus more of Clark trying to exist in the same world as Superman.

Yup, and Lex making everyone turn on Superman. So the movie should be about trust as well.

#14 Posted by Lvenger (20696 posts) - - Show Bio

Actually giving us a Superman we can root for and inspire to in the sequel. Making him far more moral and ethically sound. So basically as if that scene with Zod never happened. I want to see a Superman who is willing to find another way of doing the right thing. Oh and Brainiac, mistrust and uncertainty about Superman's place in the world, more of a every day person's opinion on him and more optimism and warmth rather than sci fi coldness and moral ambiguity. MOS 2 has a lot to do to redeem MOS in my eyes.

#15 Edited by k4tzm4n (48653 posts) - - Show Bio

Recast Superman as Steven Seagal and just have 2 hours of Superman breaking limbs and necks.

Staff
#16 Edited by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@k4tzm4n: HEHE!

Chuck Norris as Darkseid?

#17 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio
#18 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

Actually giving us a Superman we can root for and inspire to in the sequel. Making him far more moral and ethically sound. So basically as if that scene with Zod never happened. I want to see a Superman who is willing to find another way of doing the right thing. Oh and Brainiac, mistrust and uncertainty about Superman's place in the world, more of a every day person's opinion on him and more optimism and warmth rather than sci fi coldness and moral ambiguity. MOS 2 has a lot to do to redeem MOS in my eyes.

I think you're being extremely harsh on Man of Steel's Superman there. He did the right thing morally. Letting Zod live would have resulted in infinitely more casualties. Remember that there's no Kryptonite yet, so there would be no way of holding Zod. The Phantom Zone generators were destroyed, there was no way to imprison him there either. If Clark didn't kill him, then Zod would have committed genocide, and since he didn't rely on the helmets like the other Kryptonians, it would just keep going and going. So Superman would just have to keep fighting him and fighting him, and look at the damage one battle caused, imagine that ten thousand times over. Breaking his neck was the most selfless thing Superman could do, and the most morally right. He killed the last of his kind to save humanity, not just one family, but the entire planet. He took that burden into himself, knowing that he would be the last of his kind. Ever.

It's not like in comics where there are a million ways to beat the bad guy, or a bunch of other heroes who could fly in and help. And it's not like the people being slaughtered were printed on paper. They have human faces in a film, and there was literally nothing on Earth other than Superman that could stop Zod. I wasn't sure how I'd feel about it when I heard about it, but seeing the film it was the most heroic thing Superman could have done.

It wasn't done out of vengeance or to satiate bloodlust or anything like that, it was simply the only thing that could be done. There was no way to hold Zod, it was death for him or death for countless others. Superman did the ethical and just thing. He protected humanity, and he took on the responsibility of being the last of his kind so that they would not suffer. He was Superman in every respect.

#19 Posted by Jpgman (69 posts) - - Show Bio

@ssejllenrad said:

More city smashing and neck breaking to piss off the whiners. :)

@k4tzm4n said:

Recast Superman as Steven Seagal and just have 2 hours of Superman breaking limbs and necks.

Lol, this and this!!

#20 Posted by k4tzm4n (48653 posts) - - Show Bio
Staff
#21 Posted by SmashBrawler (5947 posts) - - Show Bio

Have Superman destroy Earth for the lulz and then a 2-hour long credits sequence.

Online
#22 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio
#23 Edited by lilben42 (2556 posts) - - Show Bio
#24 Posted by Lvenger (20696 posts) - - Show Bio

I think you're being extremely harsh on Man of Steel's Superman there. He did the right thing morally. Letting Zod live would have resulted in infinitely more casualties. Remember that there's no Kryptonite yet, so there would be no way of holding Zod. The Phantom Zone generators were destroyed, there was no way to imprison him there either. If Clark didn't kill him, then Zod would have committed genocide, and since he didn't rely on the helmets like the other Kryptonians, it would just keep going and going. So Superman would just have to keep fighting him and fighting him, and look at the damage one battle caused, imagine that ten thousand times over. Breaking his neck was the most selfless thing Superman could do, and the most morally right. He killed the last of his kind to save humanity, not just one family, but the entire planet. He took that burden into himself, knowing that he would be the last of his kind. Ever

No I'm being justifiably harsh on Man of Steel's Superman. He did not do the right thing morally. He should have found another way to take Zod away from innocent civilians and to take him down without killing him so that he could find a way to imprison him. That's what Superman does, not resort to murder. The fact Superman kept the battle in the city and did nothing to try and imprison Zod is poor writing on Goyer's part. I fail to see how breaking Zod's neck is the most selfless thing Superman could have done. It is the most deplorable annihilation of Superman's character.

It's not like in comics where there are a million ways to beat the bad guy, or a bunch of other heroes who could fly in and help. And it's not like the people being slaughtered were printed on paper. They have human faces in a film, and there was literally nothing on Earth other than Superman that could stop Zod. I wasn't sure how I'd feel about it when I heard about it, but seeing the film it was the most heroic thing Superman could have done.

There were other ways in the film. Countless suggestions have been made on the Internet thus debunking Snyder's fraudulent claim that Superman was in a no choice scenario. If being a Superman fan has taught me anything, it's that there's always another way to rise above the methods of what others do. And having him kill was the worst way of ruining what Superman stands for. It demonises him rather than making him look like a hero.

It wasn't done out of vengeance or to satiate bloodlust or anything like that, it was simply the only thing that could be done. There was no way to hold Zod, it was death for him or death for countless others. Superman did the ethical and just thing. He protected humanity, and he took on the responsibility of being the last of his kind so that they would not suffer. He was Superman in every respect.

Superman does not operate on a greater good policy. He operates on what is the right thing to do. There was still the scout ship with cryogenic pods btw that Superman could have stored Zod in. Superman could have found a way to minimise death for everyone. And I fail to see how destroying Smallville and Metropolis in the fight against the Kryptonians makes Superman a hero. He was not ethical or just, nowhere near what Superman should be. So sorry Fade but I couldn't object to your last premise more. He was not Superman at all. Because Superman is a character I should aspire towards and be inspired by. Yet all I felt was massive disappointment in what Nolan, Goyer and Snyder had done to my favourite character. I'm afraid that my reasons are very, very just on why MOS Superman was very poorly done.

#25 Edited by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: Chill bro. There is always room for improvement. And the fact that this is a rookie Superman. He ain't gonna become All-Star right from the start. Chill and just enjoy it for what it is. Superman punching movie.

#26 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: The destructions of Smallville and Metropolis served a great purpose; Superman is not God. He may appear as a god, but he's not God. He can't save everyone, but he tried. He did, he tried to contain the damage. Yes, punching Zod through a silo isn't exactly the classiest move to the guy that owns said silo, but what's he supposed to do? You're looking at it as a comic book fan, and I think that's why you don't like Nolan's films. Superman in the comics can be that way. He can find another way, because in comics there always is another way. There wasn't one here. Zod would have just broken out of that scout ship the second he was "locked away" in there. The humans in MoS had to use a sidewinder to drop Faora, and that was only because she stood there and caught the thing. Zod could fly. He could use heat vision. He was walking nuclear weapon.

What do you do with a nuclear weapon that wants to kill everything? Do you handcuff it and tell it to be good and hope it listens, or do you disarm it and pull out the core? You do the latter. Superman's way in this film was excellently done. He was a young Superman facing an unbelievable force that he could not possibly stop. What did he do? He freaking stopped it. Yes, there were casualities, yes, there was insurmountable collateral damage. But he stopped an unstoppable genocide.

HE. NEVER. GAVE. UP.

That's what makes Superman inspiring. Being a moral centre is something to aim for, yes, but it's never giving up in the face of evil and doing the right thing that makes Superman so admirable. And that was captured in this film. He took every hit that was given to him in that movie, both emotional and physical, and he handled them on his own and did not falter in what he was doing. Zod and Superman fought for ten minutes and almost destroyed a city, and Superman lucked out getting him in the neckhold. If Superman had have flown him away, Zod would have simply beaten him down and beaten him to death. Then he would have killed everyone.

This Superman was just as morally virtuous as the comics one, only he didn't have the privilege of experience, or the safety-blankets of the comics. There was no Phantom Zone generators, no other heroes, no Kryptonite, no red sun, there was simply one man looking at an impossible choice. If Superman tried to stop Zod, he most likely would have been killed. The Earth would have died. So he killed Zod, because he wasn't selfish enough to place misguided ideals over the safety of a race.

The right thing to do is know when something is being done only for oneself. In the comics there is always another way. In Man of Steel, there wasn't.

#27 Edited by novi_homines (1338 posts) - - Show Bio

Let's just start by actually making a "Superman" film. Shouldn't be too hard right?

And @lvenger I agree with you.

#28 Edited by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

And to another point, who wants the same damn thing all the time?

The worst animated films are the ones that just retread the comics. Something different in other media is always better. If I wanted to read comic Superman, I'd read comic Superman.

#29 Posted by spinningbirdcake (1430 posts) - - Show Bio

Create an origin story for him wearing his undies on the outside.

#30 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio

@spinningbirdcake said:

Create an origin story for him wearing his undies on the outside.

They did that. It's called "Superman". It was directed by Richard Donner.

#31 Posted by Lvenger (20696 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: The destructions of Smallville and Metropolis served a great purpose; Superman is not God. He may appear as a god, but he's not God. He can't save everyone, but he tried. He did, he tried to contain the damage. Yes, punching Zod through a silo isn't exactly the classiest move to the guy that owns said silo, but what's he supposed to do? You're looking at it as a comic book fan, and I think that's why you don't like Nolan's films. Superman in the comics can be that way. He can find another way, because in comics there always is another way. There wasn't one here. Zod would have just broken out of that scout ship the second he was "locked away" in there. The humans in MoS had to use a sidewinder to drop Faora, and that was only because she stood there and caught the thing. Zod could fly. He could use heat vision. He was walking nuclear weapon.

Oh yes they served to show how in the real world, Superman basically kills more people than he saves in battles against Kryptonians. And if he really was trying to contain the damage, he'd have moved the fight somewhere else. Hell there was a cornfield next to the town he could have lured the Kryptonians to where they could fight rather than bust up a town filled with innocent people. The reason I don't like Nolan's films is because the tone, realism and approaches he brings to the table do not gel whatsoever with the original source material as well as the core of the characters. And you're missing what I'm saying with the scout ship. The pods there put the person in cryogenic sleep. It was explored in the Man of Steel prequel comic with Kara Zor-El being put in one. If Superman got Zod in there, he would have had a cryogenically frozen Zod, not a dead one.

What do you do with a nuclear weapon that wants to kill everything? Do you handcuff it and tell it to be good and hope it listens, or do you disarm it and pull out the core? You do the latter. Superman's way in this film was excellently done. He was a young Superman facing an unbelievable force that he could not possibly stop. What did he do? He freaking stopped it. Yes, there were casualities, yes, there was insurmountable collateral damage. But he stopped an unstoppable genocide.

HE. NEVER. GAVE. UP.

He stopped it in a way that betrayed everything the character stood for. Fans saw that. Writers like Mark Waid and Joe Kelly saw it. As do I. I'm not asking for Superman to be experienced but I am expecting him to act in character. And keeping the fight in a populated area along with damaging more people than he saves and to top it all off, breaking his ethical compass was not in character at all. He could have stopped the genocide another way. The only thing this Superman never gave up at was destroying buildings.

That's what makes Superman inspiring. Being a moral centre is something to aim for, yes, but it's never giving up in the face of evil and doing the right thing that makes Superman so admirable. And that was captured in this film. He took every hit that was given to him in that movie, both emotional and physical, and he handled them on his own and did not falter in what he was doing. Zod and Superman fought for ten minutes and almost destroyed a city, and Superman lucked out getting him in the neckhold. If Superman had have flown him away, Zod would have simply beaten him down and beaten him to death. Then he would have killed everyone.

I agree with the bit in bold. I really do Fade. You've hit the nail on the head here. But the rest, no dice. If Superman had flown Zod away, he could have gone all out to put Zod down. He had the experience and the knowledge of his powers. That was even shown when Superman got Zod to be exposed to his senses. That should have been expanded upon and acted as a way for Superman to beat Zod in the end.

This Superman was just as morally virtuous as the comics one, only he didn't have the privilege of experience, or the safety-blankets of the comics. There was no Phantom Zone generators, no other heroes, no Kryptonite, no red sun, there was simply one man looking at an impossible choice. If Superman tried to stop Zod, he most likely would have been killed. The Earth would have died. So he killed Zod, because he wasn't selfish enough to place misguided ideals over the safety of a race.

The right thing to do is know when something is being done only for oneself. In the comics there is always another way. In Man of Steel, there wasn't.

No he really wasn't. He was a faint shadow of the virtue of the comic book Superman. Lois knew about Phantom Zone drives so that could have been played out in the film. If Superman tried to stop Zod, he would have been able to do so if he was able to go all out. And the Earth would still survive. Instead, he betrayed what he stood for and failed to act as a proper protector of the human race. In the words of my mother after she watched the film, Superman was nothing more than a "glorified super soldier." Tell me, is that what Superman is to you Fade? Is that what this version of Superman is to you? Because to me, Superman is about bettering ourselves and striving to act in a way so as to make ourselves better than we can be.

#32 Edited by Lvenger (20696 posts) - - Show Bio

Apologies, I'm derailing this thread. This isn't my intention at all. I've said my piece on Man of Steel plenty of times. No more arguing on this when this isn't the point of the thread.

#33 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@durakken: That would be nice....very nice...but who shall she be??

#34 Posted by TheAcidSkull (18032 posts) - - Show Bio

I hope they focus less on the action and more on the story. Don't get me wrong, the action was awesome and badass in the movie but the scenes such as the tentacle one seemed unnecessary and well out of place, it was cool but the final ZOD VS SUPERMAN fight would have been much more enjoyable if they could have taken that scene out. But i Hope Snyder keeps up the quality of fights in this movie, the Superman Vs Zod might just be the best Comic book movie battle to date

also lest have more LOIS and Clark. Lois seemed awesome at the start, but due to the fact that Kal was mostly superman throughout the movie it was hard to focus on their relationship and the spunk in Lois's personality. however the first movie set everything up well and this has a lot of potential. which brings me to my next point, we need more clumsy clark kent in the Daily Planet!

Man of Steel was an awesome movie , a movie i'd easily give 8.5/10, but if they fix all these problems they could reach a perfect movie or at least an Approximately perfect movie.

cheers.

#35 Posted by kapitein_zeppos (341 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger said:

Actually giving us a Superman we can root for and inspire to in the sequel. Making him far more moral and ethically sound. So basically as if that scene with Zod never happened. I want to see a Superman who is willing to find another way of doing the right thing. Oh and Brainiac, mistrust and uncertainty about Superman's place in the world, more of a every day person's opinion on him and more optimism and warmth rather than sci fi coldness and moral ambiguity. MOS 2 has a lot to do to redeem MOS in my eyes.

It's not like in comics where there are a million ways to beat the bad guy, or a bunch of other heroes who could fly in and help.

It's a film, just as arbitrary as a comic book ... It was the decision of the makers to have the Man of Steel kill Zod so people could not accuse him of being a boyscout who helps little old ladies out of trees and helps cats cross the street. They simply contrived the whole setup so there was no choice, but they could just as easily have the Man of Steel kick Zod into the Phantom Zone singularity at the last second or introduced some kind of weakness that Zod hoped to use on the Man of Steel and then hoisted him with it in a petard-like manner.

#36 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio

@theacidskull: I'm pretty sure that's what they are going to do. This movie was basically to please the fanboys who bitched about Superman not punching stuff.

#37 Posted by RDClip (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, since the characters and the world have been established, theres more room for story.

First of all, there needs to be something between Lois and Clark. Are they good friends because of what they went through together and have a bit of romantic tension? Do they acknowledge the romantic tension, but choose not to act on it due to the difficulty with the superhero life? Are they actually in a romantic relationship? Goyer needs to establish the relationship because the love between Lois and Clark is key to the character of Superman.

Since Metropolis has been destroyed, someone needs to rebuild the city. Doesn't Lexcorp have a big construction division? Lex should be in MoS 2, but not as the main villian. Give him a substantial subplot and a lot of screen time. Since Lex is the most intelligent man in the world, maybe the government contracts him to do some research into the Kryptonians' technology and their biology since it stands to reason that they confiscated the scout ship after Superman crashed it. Maybe while Superman is dealing with Brainiac, Lex can be working on the government super bio-weapon codenamed Project: Doomsday.

And generally, I want to see Clark Kent, investigative journalist. I want to see Clark as a competant guy in doing other important things other than punching things in a Kryptonian biosuit. Have Clark investigate Lex's rebuilding of the city, trying to expose corruption and shoddy business practices.

#38 Posted by Deranged Midget (17712 posts) - - Show Bio

@lvenger: I'm sorry but I'm going to cut in for a second.

A lot of your statements as to how Clark may have stopped Zod in a different way are a tad unrealistic. Clark did all he could in regards to stopping Zod and the Kryptonians. Why didn't he try to take the fight somewhere else? Because he didn't have the power to do so. Have you ever been in a fight where you were up against an opponent or two of similar or greater physical strength and severely superior hand-to-hand skill? It's a similar case here. Superman was the weak one here, the inexperienced one and that was made painfully and utterly clear with his battle with Faora and Zod.

In the first fight, he utilized his environment to his advantage as well as his ability to fly and utilize his different powers. That was simply not the case with Zod who was genetically born and raised to be a superior warrior, to overcome any that oppose him and that was obvious as the fight dragged on. Superman was getting beat on and he got lucky with that chokehold at the end. If that fight continued forward, Zod would've have effortlessly killed Clark as he had no remorse for his actions.

As for utilizing a possible moment with whatever was left with Clark's "Fortress", how do you propose for Clark to direct Zod all the way across the city? He can't mate, he was the weaker and far less skilled fighter. He couldn't do anything to stop Zod from tossing him through buildings and toying with him. That's why I would somewhat warrant the destruction caused in Man of Steel because it was not of Clark's own doing and he didn't and couldn't have done much else when facing opponents just as powerful as he. It is really no different in comics when he goes up against Zod, Metallo, Parasite, Bizarro, or occasionally Mongul and you know that.

The beauty of Man of Steel that greatly appealed to me, even my fanboy side, was that there were no blatant plot devices to help Clark here. He had no outside help, he had no Kryptonite or a special chamber to take away his powers. It came down to his moral and ethical decisions. Does he chance the risk of losing his only foothold over Zod or temporarily knock him out and cause even further unwarranted destruction and annihilation. Additionally, I will agree that this is not a Superman film. This is an origin film, a behind the scenes if you will. This is most definitely not the Superman we know and I find it completely unfair to compare him as such. Clark was still learning who and what he wanted to be, still attempting to come to terms what his potential destiny could become and how he would selflessly use his power to protect rather than to enslave or destroy as Zod would've wanted.

Just my two cents.

Moderator
#39 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio
#40 Posted by Deranged Midget (17712 posts) - - Show Bio

@sandman_: Well from what I've heard, Snyder essentially said that Kryptonite does exist in the universe, he just didn't want in MoS. I think Lex and Metallo would be a fantastic fit in the second film, with Brainiac and possibly Parasite for the third.

Moderator
#41 Posted by lilben42 (2556 posts) - - Show Bio

@deranged_midget: Agreed. I really hope they make Lex so smart and conniving that when we figure out his real plan it puts us in shock.

#42 Edited by The Stegman (25011 posts) - - Show Bio

I commented on this in another thread, so I'll copy and paste it here.

My (vague) dream for Man of Steel 2

Title: Man of Tomorrow

Villain(s): Lex Luthor, Metallo, Glen Woodburn (Lois' contact in the first film)

Plot: It is 6 months after the Kryptonian terrorist known as General Zod attacked Metropolis. Billionaire Lex Luthor has stepped up and started his "The City of Tomorrow" project, single handedly leading the task to rebuild what was destroyed. Because of this, he is called "The Man of Tomorrow". Public opinion of Superman is mixed. Some believe him to be a force of good, the man that saved millions in his fight with Zod, others believe him to be a menace, and the reason Zod arrived in the first place. Luthor, who has been studying Superman, has deemed the alien a danger to Earth and its people. He says this during several press interviews. However, many still love the Man of Steel, so it leads Luthor to take more drastic measures. We see him going into an underground base under Lexcorp where we see a man floating in a tube, wires connected to him. On the tank, we see the name "J. Corben"

Flashback. We see days after Superman and Zod's battle Corben is hospitalized, he was injured in the destruction, he now is in an iron long and unable to move or speak. His wife and son were killed in the attack. Luthor approaches him in the hospital and says he can help John seek retribution on the man who ruined his life, he offers him to be apart of Project Metallo" We then see Lex studying the flight patterns Superman exhibits and notices he frequents a place in the Artic. Lex finds where Superman's "fortress" used to be, and notices debris around it. Including a mysterious green rock. Upon taking the rock, he studies it, seeing that it is alien in origin. He had taken some of Superman's DNA (for later use in his Bizarro project) and noticed the cells decayed when exposed to the rock.

Back to the present. Superman is fighting a series of salvaged and reprogrammed robots that engineering genius, Winslow Schott (Toyman) has turned into heinous creatures. After defeating them. He is immediately attacked by Metallo, now having a heart made of Kryptonite. Superman is defeated, Lex reveals that his Metallo is only one in a new series of ''super men'' who will be honest and forth coming with the government, work along side them, and not keep their identities secret.

MEANWHILE: As a Lois plot point, Glen could be investigating the Planet's new employee, Clark Kent. He finds it curious how a man with no formal education, nor experience in media, suddenly becomes a staff member. He has his growing suspicions that there's more to Clark than meets the eye, Lois has to convince him otherwise.

Now, Superman must find a way to stop Lex, clear his name and find out more about the rock that nearly killed him.

Online
#43 Edited by ltbrd (562 posts) - - Show Bio

@martian81: I think Lex could be a benevolent philanthropist and we still get the legendary rivalry between the two characters on account of the other point I made....Alexa Luthor (or whatever version of -lex the writers come up with). During the events of MoS2 she could be killed on account of Intergang's or Corben's actions. That would be a great catalyst to moving Lex from simply speaking out against Superman and helping the military to truly beginning a deep hate for him as well as the rest of Metropolis who would continue to praise Superman over him and his dead wife despite everything they did for the city. It would be the ultimate accumulation of his ideals coupled with extreme loss, thus giving his character a better reason to descend into madness and hate than simply being that way because he's so much smarter than everyone else. Where the tragedies of Superman's life make him a better hero, the opposite would be shown in Lex.

@lvenger: We can debate examples of Superman killing in the comics, movies, and tv shows vs him not killing in the same situation....both have occurred and so both have merit. At the end of the day it comes down to whether or not you see killing in the defense of others as wrong and to me it isn't. Killing in the defense of others cannot be put into such a black and white statement as "its wrong cause there is always another way"......or would you go so far as to say that all the men and women in the military involved in combat or all the police officers in the world that have shot to death a criminal are evil or somehow morally inadequate? I don't think you would nor do I think you would say that these men and women, by virtue of the dangers they place themselves in for the protection of others, are not heroes.

Look back at older tales and mythologies and compare them to comic books.....they are as R and XXX rated as you can get. Yet their core is filled with moral and life lessons. So what's the difference? How come comic books need to spell out the morality and present it in such a way as not to confuse or offend, but before that is wasn't the case? How come Superman must be constrained to a "no kill" rule yet the Three Musketeers can stab people left and right and be considered heroes for the justice they bring to France? How can Perseus be a hero for beheading Medusa?

I look at these types of comparisons and I weep for the idea that we as a society have become so wrapped around the axle on terms like "good taste" and "pc" and "moral certainty" that we are presenting characters to young minds that in no way mimic real life and thus paint in their minds a truth that doesn't actually exist. We spoon feed ourselves Disney lullabies and then become shocked and outraged when even the smallest infraction to our perfect idea of society is "shattered" (no, its not really, the bad stuff happens everyday we just choose to ignore it 99% of the time until CNN and Fox News decide to blare it into our brains non-stop for five weeks straight.....cause that's news today).

Should Superman kill needlessly? No. Should Superman revel in killing his opponents? Absolutely not. I want to see nightmare scenes in MoS2 where Superman is plagued by the decision he had to make just as he was anguished after making it. Cause that's the true lesson, that's the true look at morality and whether a person is good or evil. Its not in whether they never commit the deed but in why they did and how that affects and shapes them through life.

The Superman of MoS2 should have far more respect and concern for life than he did in MoS because of the events he was a part of and the decisions he had to make and thus he becomes the teacher to others when those same situations are faced rather than simply a cardboard cut-out that spews the party by-line. To do that MoS couldn't be wrapped in a pretty little bow but at the same time the final product of MoS2 could so benefit from these events (unless WB caves to public pressure) and present the Superman that everybody was looking for that we then look back on MoS and say "yep, I get now why that had to happen because it gave us this".

#44 Posted by SandMan_ (4528 posts) - - Show Bio
#45 Posted by SuperEnd (89 posts) - - Show Bio

Well the precuel comic has hinted that Supergirl will eventually appear in the movies.

#46 Posted by Durakken (1593 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll also take her...

#47 Edited by drgnx (3565 posts) - - Show Bio

Lex, Metallo, and a clone that goes from Bizarro->Superdoom->doomsday!

#48 Edited by kapitein_zeppos (341 posts) - - Show Bio

Lex Luthor is a reviled man. People hate him, but he is a force to be reckoned with. This Luthor isn't evil or a benevolent philanthropist, he is a complex character, a very driven genius. He has very clear goals, but the way he does everything makes him look evil. He soon realizes that the world is at the mercy of alien forces and that the Man of Steel may not always be at hand to save the day. He's more of a detached intellectual, slightly autistic, quirky at times. His philosophy is that his work must better the world, but it cannot be slowed down to protect every single tree and every animal. He thinks long term to a time where environmental damage can be avoided more easily and fixed more effectively without putting progress on hold. (To him it's the difference between removing a band-aid slowly or quickly)

So he starts a new project to create something that will protect mankind should the Man of Steel fail to keep up his promise. It's very experimental, potentially very dangerous and at some point it threatens the world and the Man of Steel shuts it down.

Luthor up to this point was fairly neutral about the Man of Steel, giving him the benefit of the doubt, but now Luthor realizes that he is trying to monopolize global security, so he deals with it as he would any business rival and this causes the rift to widen. This strained relationship reaches a climax where Luthor makes the ice cold decision that if he is denied the world a chance to help protect it, he will dedicate this life to destroying the Man of Steel.

#50 Posted by Eternal19 (2076 posts) - - Show Bio

Lex Luthor and Metallo or Parasite(but not both). A redesigned Clark Kent disguise. Less Action and more focus on developing the characters. One major flaw with MOS was that the Daily Planet Staff felt Unnecessary and thrown in