Man of Steel. Nolan Superman Reboot.

I always figured that would be one of the only ways to handle the character on film.

I feel like the only place to go from the conclusion of this movie is to focus on Earth and humanity, for which Luthor is - regrettably when it comes to variety - the perfect villain. There's other villains who could fit the role of "the best and worst of humanity" in the way Zod represented "the best and worst of Krypton," but Luthor is just be most immediately suited to the role.

I'd love to see him use some other villains in his plot, though. Parasite or Metallo would make great characters of the "living weapons made to combat Superman" variety.

Bringing Krypton back again, either by way of Braniac or with any of the other surviving Kryptonians, would feel kind of like forcing back in an arc that this movie put a lot of effort into concluding.

edited 28th Jun '13 2:15:12 PM by KnownUnknown

I agree. I was thinking though (maybe if there was a sequel introducing some form of Supergirl) where one of those Robot Buddy things the Kryptonians would use would appear, and while initially seeming benevolent, would do evil stuff.

Thing is though, since Zod already hacked Earth electronics and had the goal of terraforming Earth, seems like you already have a villain too similar to Braniac (note, I'm only familiar with the DCAU version).

For the sequel I'd like to see Luthor along with one of Superman's metahuman villains that have been mentioned, like Parasite or Metallo or maybe even Livewire, which would be cool but unlikely. Luthor could be their benefactor. For the third, maybe Doomsday or Darkseid. Or hell, maybe even both, if they change Doomsday's origin to being an experiment from Apokalypse. Just an idea, I'm not sure that many people really care about Doomsday or his origin.

I was honestly a little surprised that they didn't have at least a throwaway line about Brainiac in all of the Krypton scenes (Brainiac being Kryptonian in origin has become a Ret-Canon) and instead had a completely different AI Jor-El was working with, but they probably didn't want fans to get distracted into thinking he was going to show. In truth it wouldn't have taken much to write him in as the main villain over Zod, although many of the themes and plot points would have a massive difference in tone.

The main problem now is that if they do bring him in it would be repeating the "Alien Invasion by something Kryptonian" and I'd rather they look for something more original. Maybe Brainiac could be a side-effect of Luthor's scientists examining the wreckage of the Scout ship and/or Creation Engine, which takes out the Alien Invasion repeat, gives more of a presence to Luthor and it flows from the previous story rather than starting over with an explanation why Brainiac shows up.

I do think Brainiac in concept might be better suited for a Justice League movie, as he can take on multiple avatars and minimizing having to introduce a lot of villainous characters.

I am 99% sure Lex Luthor will be the next villain. Especially since he has name recognition- if a general person knows any Superman villain it's him. I also don't think they'll kill him off in the end of the movie either if he's in it because he would be good for the Justice League movie. If they ever do that. I honestly wouldn't be shocked if it doesn't happen for another 10 years at least.

A realistic Luthor will be refreshing. I hope he's somewhat virtuous as opposed to Evil Steve Jobs, or whatever the current canon is.

Whatever his evil scheme is it better not involve land scams in any way.

Maybe, in addition to Luthor, they can help the variety by putting Morgan Edge, at least. It'd be nice if Edge was the mass media arm to Luthor's empire, directly targeting the Planet himself while Luthor appears to remain above it all and uninvolved.

The second film should indeed showcase Clark's humanity, and Luthor is the best villain to attack that side of him.

Saw Man of Steel again today. 3D really doesn't enhance the experience but it doesn't really take anything away either.

It's not like Luthor would be that repetitive. Post-Crisis/DCAU Luthor is a very different beast to the smug twerp from the Donner movies and would basically feel like a completely new character in that regard.

Saw this on wikipedia

comicbook.com/blog/2013/06/14/man-of-steel-rotten-tomatoes-editor-shocked-at-low-critic-rating/

edited 29th Jun '13 10:15:43 AM by Cruherrx

I disagree, but the guy's entitled to his opinion.

edited 29th Jun '13 10:30:44 AM by KnownUnknown

The Rotten Tomatoes editors are still people with individual opinions. I remember watching the Rotten Tomatoes show and seeing the host admit he doesn't like Blade Runner, which is highly rated on the site and considered a sci-fi classic. No one guy has all the right opinions.

Some movies end up rubbing people the wrong way too, it has nothing to do with the writing or directing quality. I remember Roger Ebert talked about Stuart Little and how he couldn't get past the premise but kept an open mind for Stuart Little 2 and found himself appreciating what it had to offer.

One of the foundations of Luthor Post-Crisis is that Superman may be godlike but he cannot penetrate through Luthors legal security. Thus it is an Unstoppable Force vs. Immovable Object scenario. I would love a scene at the end of Man of Steel 2 that reflects the pilot episode of Lois and Clark where Superman confronts Lex and outlines all his crimes and simply says he'll be watching. Lex is his Arch-Enemy and it would be fantastic to see that kind of character span more than one movie.

Lol, i wasnt saying his opinion somehow valued more.

One of the things I enjoyed in 52 was Luthor steadily getting more and more angry with the behavior of new hero Supernova (that Luthor is convinced is Superman in disguise), who would hover outside Luthor's office window occasionally. Just reminding Luthor that he was watching.

edited 29th Jun '13 12:22:36 PM by CorrTerek

The next movie is called The Last Son Of Krypton, and focuses on Supes' humanity.

I'm actually really surprised by how polarizing this movie seems to be. Its seems to be a love it or hate it kind of thing, and I don't get why. I thought it was fun and enjoyable and don't understand why its suddenly on the same level as Green Lantern to some people.

On that subject, I found the GL movie to be highly flawed yet enjoyable.

^ Same here. I liked it better overall than half of the Marvel movies.

I genuinely cannot comprehend that. I rented GL, went into it with no expectations, and still thought it was dreadful (on a level with the two most recent Fantastic 4 movies). The main character's a hackneyed manchild fighter-jock cliché with no original characteristics, his love interest has no development or personality, the CG effects looked weird, starting the whole thing with a massive exposition-dump-with-voiceover really didn't work, and the plot didn't really hold together (you're supposed to be part of an elite interstellar organization and you leave after one day because someone said something mean to you? And then you're somehow able to defeat something that killed all of them without effort because...well, just because?). And to someone who's new to it, bits of the context are just laughable. For example, I was positive that "maybe the battery ran out" was a joke, and then he recharges it and...seriously? That's actually what happened? Your superweapon stopped working because its battery ran out? Send to Apple, maybe they can find a way to make it last longer.

I've never read the comics, so maybe it's just enjoyment for seeing something you like on the big screen that endears it to fans. In and of itself, it had no positive qualities that I could see.

I thought Green Lantern was mediocre and bland, but not terrible. I'm not a huge Green Lantern fan, but I think they got most of the mythos right. There was attempt at character development for both Hal and the villain that wasn't Parrallax. The special effects were decent, though I have low standards for those. The plot was weak, and Hal beating Parralax on his own was lame. Hal himself was boring, though I believe that's accurate to the comics. It had lots of shortcomings, but it was decent enough that a good sequel could be salvaged from it.

Man of Steel had lots of controversial points. I'm fine with most of them, as I saw it not as a Superman who is a righteous paragon, but one that's growing into the paragon we expect him to be. There were some problems, but I liked it overall.

The Marvel movies have all been at least decent. Most of them are fairly simple, but that's what they're aiming for, so that's fine. I see the Marvel movies as just trying to be comic book movies and succeeding at it. DC movies are more ambitious by themselves and try for deeper themes, but they hit a lot more stumbling blocks along the path.

Green Lantern is.... not a deep character. The series flirted with politics during Vietnam/AIDS' day, in a whiz-bang manner similar to Doctor Who today.

I don't know why Green Lantern was filmed first. If it were up to me, I'd keep him out of the JLU.. Flash is quite broken enough, we don't need some guy who can summon a green minigun out of his ass.